Explore the vast range of titles available.

The risk of LV thrombus formation is highest during the first 3 months following acute myocardial infarction, but the potential for cerebral emboli persists in the large population of patients with chronic LV dysfunction. Since these thromboembolic events are usually unheralded by warning signs of transient cerebral ischaemia, the only truly satisfactory medical approach is adequate management of these high risk groups. [...]patients with an acute coronary syndrome display a hypercoagulable state with, for example, increased concentrations of prothrombin, fibrinopeptide A, and von Willebrand factor, and decreased concentrations of the enzyme responsible for cleaving von Willebrand factor (ADAMTS13).w1 w2 This triad can result in the formation of LV thrombus composed of fibrin, red blood cells, and platelets.

No medium-term data are available on the random comparison between everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds and everolimus-eluting metallic stents. The study aims to demonstrate two mechanistic properties of the bioresorbable scaffold: increase in luminal dimensions as a result of recovered vasomotion of the scaffolded vessel. The ABSORB II trial is a prospective, randomised, active-controlled, single-blind, parallel two-group, multicentre clinical trial. We enrolled eligible patients aged 18–85 years with evidence of myocardial ischaemia and one or two de-novo native lesions in different epicardial vessels. We randomly assigned patients (2:1) to receive treatment with an everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffold (Absorb; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA) or treatment with an everolimus-eluting metallic stent (Xience; Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Randomisation was stratified by diabetes status and number of planned target lesions. At 3 year follow-up, the primary endpoint was superiority of the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold versus the Xience metallic stent in angiographic vasomotor reactivity after administration of intracoronary nitrate. The co-primary endpoint is the non-inferiority of angiographic late luminal loss. For the endpoint of vasomotion, the comparison was tested using a two-sided t test. For the endpoint of late luminal loss, non-inferiority was tested using a one-sided asymptotic test, against a non-inferiority margin of 0·14 mm. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01425281. Between Nov 28, 2011, and June 4, 2013, we enrolled 501 patients and randomly assigned them to the Absorb group (335 patients, 364 lesions) or the Xience group (166 patients, 182 lesions). The vasomotor reactivity at 3 years was not statistically different (Absorb group 0·047 mm [SD 0·109] vs Xience group 0·056 mm [0·117]; psuperiority=0·49), whereas the late luminal loss was larger in the Absorb group than in the Xience group (0·37 mm [0·45] vs 0·25 mm [0·25]; pnon-inferiority=0·78). This difference in luminal dimension was confirmed by intravascular ultrasound assessment of the minimum lumen area (4·32 mm2 [SD 1·48] vs 5·38 mm2 [1·51]; p<0·0001). The secondary endpoints of patient-oriented composite endpoint, Seattle Angina Questionnaire score, and exercise testing were not statistically different in both groups. However, a device-oriented composite endpoint was significantly different between the Absorb group and the Xience group (10% vs 5%, hazard ratio 2·17 [95% CI 1·01–4·70]; log-rank test p=0·0425), mainly driven by target vessel myocardial infarction (6% vs 1%; p=0·0108), including peri-procedural myocardial infarction (4% vs 1%; p=0·16). The trial did not meet its co-primary endpoints of superior vasomotor reactivity and non-inferior late luminal loss for the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold with respect to the metallic stent, which was found to have significantly lower late luminal loss than the Absorb scaffold. A higher rate of device-oriented composite endpoint due to target vessel myocardial infarction, including peri-procedural myocardial infarction, was observed in the Absorb group. The patient-oriented composite endpoint, anginal status, and exercise testing, were not statistically different between both devices at 3 years. Future studies should investigate the clinical impact of accurate intravascular imaging in sizing the device and in optimising the scaffold implantation. The benefit and need for prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy after bioresorbable scaffold implantation could also become a topic for future clinical research. Abbott Vascular.

Cardiac imaging has a pivotal role in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of ischaemic heart disease. SPECT is most commonly used for clinical myocardial perfusion imaging, whereas PET is the clinical reference standard for the quantification of myocardial perfusion. MRI does not involve exposure to ionizing radiation, similar to echocardiography, which can be performed at the bedside. CT perfusion imaging is not frequently used but CT offers coronary angiography data, and invasive catheter-based methods can measure coronary flow and pressure. Technical improvements to the quantification of pathophysiological parameters of myocardial ischaemia can be achieved. Clinical consensus recommendations on the appropriateness of each technique were derived following a European quantitative cardiac imaging meeting and using a real-time Delphi process. SPECT using new detectors allows the quantification of myocardial blood flow and is now also suited to patients with a high BMI. PET is well suited to patients with multivessel disease to confirm or exclude balanced ischaemia. MRI allows the evaluation of patients with complex disease who would benefit from imaging of function and fibrosis in addition to perfusion. Echocardiography remains the preferred technique for assessing ischaemia in bedside situations, whereas CT has the greatest value for combined quantification of stenosis and characterization of atherosclerosis in relation to myocardial ischaemia. In patients with a high probability of needing invasive treatment, invasive coronary flow and pressure measurement is well suited to guide treatment decisions. In this Consensus Statement, we summarize the strengths and weaknesses as well as the future technological potential of each imaging modality.Cardiac imaging has a pivotal role in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of ischaemic heart disease. In this Consensus Statement, the authors summarize the use of SPECT, PET, MRI, echocardiography, CT and invasive coronary flow and pressure measurement, and describe the relative strengths and weaknesses of each modality.

During progression of atherosclerosis, myeloid cells destabilize lipid-rich plaques in the arterial wall and cause their rupture, thus triggering myocardial infarction and stroke. Survivors of acute coronary syndromes have a high risk of recurrent events for unknown reasons. Here we show that the systemic response to ischaemic injury aggravates chronic atherosclerosis. After myocardial infarction or stroke, Apoe −/− mice developed larger atherosclerotic lesions with a more advanced morphology. This disease acceleration persisted over many weeks and was associated with markedly increased monocyte recruitment. Seeking the source of surplus monocytes in plaques, we found that myocardial infarction liberated haematopoietic stem and progenitor cells from bone marrow niches via sympathetic nervous system signalling. The progenitors then seeded the spleen, yielding a sustained boost in monocyte production. These observations provide new mechanistic insight into atherogenesis and provide a novel therapeutic opportunity to mitigate disease progression. Myocardial infarction accelerates atherosclerosis through activation of the sympathetic nervous system, and the consequent release of haematopoietic stem and progenitor cells. Recurrent heart attack risk Patients who have a myocardial infarction are at high risk of recurrent events. This study shows for the first time that myocardial infarction and stroke accelerate atherosclerosis. The authors were able to demonstrate that myocardial infarction leads to activation of the sympathetic nervous system, which, in turn, leads to the release of haematopoietic stem cells and progenitor cells. These cells seeded in the spleen and augmented the production of monocytes displaying an enhanced atherogenic phenotype. These findings were correlated with patient data showing that prior beta-blocker therapy was associated with a decrease in circulating monocytes after myocardial infarction. These findings suggest that interventions that interrupt the supply of monocytes could attenuate atherosclerosis and may improve long-term patient outcomes.

The aim was threefold: 1) expound the independent physiological parameters that drive FFR, 2) elucidate contradictory conclusions between fractional flow reserve (FFR) and coronary flow reserve (CFR), and 3) highlight the need of both FFR and CFR in clinical decision making. Simple explicit theoretical models were supported by coronary data analyzed retrospectively. FFR was expressed as a function of pressure loss coefficient, aortic pressure and hyperemic coronary microvascular resistance. The FFR-CFR relationship was also demonstrated mathematically and was shown to be exclusively dependent upon the coronary microvascular resistances. The equations were validated in a first series of 199 lesions whose pressures and distal velocities were monitored. A second dataset of 75 lesions with pre- and post-PCI measures of FFR and CFR was also analyzed to investigate the clinical impact of our hemodynamic reasoning. Hyperemic coronary microvascular resistance and pressure loss coefficient had comparable impacts (45% and 49%) on FFR. There was a good concordance (y = 0.96 x - 0.02, r2 = 0.97) between measured CFR and CFR predicted by FFR and coronary resistances. In patients with CFR < 2 and CFR/FFR ≥ 2, post-PCI CFR was significantly >2 (p < 0.001), whereas it was not (p = 0.94) in patients with CFR < 2 and CFR/FFR < 2. The FFR behavior and FFR-CFR relationship are predictable from basic hemodynamics. Conflicting conclusions between FFR and CFR are explained from coronary vascular resistances. As confirmed by our results, FFR and CFR are complementary; they could jointly contribute to better PCI guidance through the CFR-to-FFR ratio in patients with coronary artery disease.

Revascularization decision for intermediate stenoses necessitates consideration of their hemodynamic impact. We report the use of distal coronary pressure (Pd) above proximal aortic pressure (Pa) during the early expansion period as a visual dichotomous marker (negative expansion resistance, NER) for rapid clinical decision-making. Simultaneous pressure and velocity signals were used to calculate instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), fractional flow reserve (FFR), hyperemic stenosis resistance (hSR), and to identify the NER. NER was defined as the Pd > Pa during the early-expansion period, which refers to early-decompression of coronary circulation marked by pressure decay (dP/dt < 0) coinciding the time-window of reduced ejection phase of systole to early diastole. Classification performance of NER was evaluated against iFR, FFR and hSR. Out of 475 lesions with mean diameter stenosis of 61% ± 16% from 388 patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS), 46%(217/475) exhibited the NER-phenomenon. Of these, 96% (209/217) had an iFR above 0.89(NPV = 0.96[95%CI 93–98] PPV = 0.47[95%CI 41–54]) indicating hemodynamically non-significant lesions. 94%(204/217) of the NER( +) lesions had an hSR below 0.80(NPV = 0.94 [95%CI 90–97] PPV = 0.36[95%CI 30–42]), and 88%(191/217) had an FFR above 0.80 (NPV = 0.88[95%CI 83–92] PPV = 0.53[95%CI 46–59]), indicating non-flow limiting lesions. Of 8 lesions with NER despite an abnormal iFR, only 1 had abnormal hSR, whereas 7 had normal hSR. Of 162 lesions with abnormal FFR, iFR identified 53 (33%) as ‘normal’ whereas NER was present in 26 (16%) of these cases.NER was associated with instantaneously stronger coronary decompression wave(8.0 ± 11.2 vs 5.5 ± 10.1 10.kW.m-2.s -2 p:0.016) and higher flow acceleration(195 ± 204 vs 106 ± 182 cm.s -2 p  < 0.001). In conclusion, the NER, visually recognized by resting pressure tracings, rules out flow-limiting lesions in CCS with high certainty, offering a simple first-line evaluation for clinical decision-making, and warrants prospective clinical studies.

In acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS), up to 80% of patients present with multivessel coronary artery disease. Currently, the best revascularization strategy is unknown. Therefore, a prospective randomized adequately powered clinical trial is warranted. The CULPRIT-SHOCK study is a 706-patient controlled, international, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial. It is designed to compare culprit lesion only percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with possible staged non-culprit lesion revascularization versus immediate multivessel PCI in patients with CS complicating acute myocardial infarction. Patients will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to one of the two treatment arms. The primary efficacy endpoint of CULPRIT-SHOCK is 30-day mortality and severe renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy. Secondary outcome measures such as hemodynamic, laboratory, and clinical parameters will serve as surrogate endpoints for prognosis. Furthermore, an intermediate- and long-term follow-up at 6 and 12 months will be performed. Safety endpoints include the assessment of bleeding and stroke. The CULPRIT-SHOCK trial will address the question of optimal revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel disease and acute myocardial infarction complicated by CS.

Fractional flow reserve is routinely used to estimate the extent of myocardial ischaemia caused by the narrowing of a coronary artery. In this Review, the physiological basis of this measurement, its limitations, and its clinical use are discussed. Documentation of inducible myocardial ischaemia, related to the coronary stenosis of interest, is of increasing importance in lesion selection for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is an easily understood, routine diagnostic modality that has become part of daily clinical practice, and is used as a surrogate technique for noninvasive assessment of myocardial ischaemia. However, the application of a single, discrete, cut-off value for FFR-guided lesion selection for PCI, and its adoption in contemporary revascularization guidelines, has limited the requirement for a thorough understanding of the physiological basis of FFR. This limitation constitutes an obstacle for the adequate use and interpretation of this technique, and also for the understanding of new and future modalities of physiological functional intracoronary testing. In this Review, we revisit the fundamental elements of coronary physiology in the absence or presence of coronary artery disease. We provide insight into three essential characteristics of FFR as a diagnostic tool in contemporary clinical practice—the theoretical framework of FFR and its associated limitations; the characteristics and role of FFR as a surrogate for noninvasively assessed myocardial ischaemia; and the requirement and associated caveats of potent vasodilatory drugs to induce maximal vasodilatation of the coronary vascular bed. Key Points Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is an invasive technique that was introduced as a surrogate for noninvasive assessment of inducible myocardial ischaemia FFR is the physiological index of choice to evaluate functional lesion severity, because it is cost-effective and its use has unequivocal clinical benefit to patients with stable coronary artery disease The relationship between FFR and inducible myocardial ischaemia and, therefore, the accuracy of FFR to identify ischaemia-generating stenoses, as based on a single, predefined cut-off value, can differ between patients FFR is based on a simplified, theoretical framework of the coronary circulation, which has important consequences for appropriate use and interpretation that should be considered in daily clinical practice The technique to measure FFR should adhere to methods used in validation studies, especially the methods used to achieve maximal vasodilatation, to ensure appropriate lesion selection for percutaneous coronary intervention Full physiological investigation of a coronary lesion requires simultaneous assessment of intracoronary pressure and flow, thereby separating the contributions of epicardial and microvascular resistance to reduced blood flow

Angiography-derived physiological assessment of coronary lesions has emerged as an alternative to wire-based assessment aiming at less-invasiveness and shorter procedural time as well as cost effectiveness in physiology-guided decision making. However, current available image-derived physiology software have limitations including the requirement of multiple projections and are time consuming. The ReVEAL iFR (Radiographic imaging Validation and EvALuation for Angio-iFR) trial is a multicenter, multicontinental, validation study which aims to validate the diagnostic accuracy of the Angio-iFR medical software device (Philips, San Diego, US) in patients undergoing angiography for Chronic Coronary Syndrome (CCS). The Angio-iFR will enable operators to predict both the iFR and FFR value within a few seconds from a single projection of cine angiography by using a lumped parameter fluid dynamics model. Approximately 440 patients with at least one de-novo 40% to 90% stenosis by visual angiographic assessment will be enrolled in the study. The primary endpoint is the sensitivity and specificity of the iFR and FFR for a given lesion compared to the corresponding invasive measures. The enrollment started in August 2019, and was completed in March 2021. The Angio-iFR system has the potential of simplifying physiological evaluation of coronary stenosis compared with available systems, providing estimates of both FFR and iFR. The ReVEAL iFR study will investigate the predictive performance of the novel Angio-iFR software in CCS patients. Ultimately, based on its unique characteristics, the Angio-iFR system may contribute to improve adoption of functional coronary assessment and the workflow in the catheter laboratory.

Evidence supporting the use of coronary physiology as an adjunct to coronary angiography to guide percutaneous coronary interventions has accumulated over the past 25 years. The fractional flow reserve has dominated this evolving physiological guidance of coronary intervention and its use is supported by large clinical outcome trials. However, despite clinical practice guidelines advocating its use in most patients with coronary stenosis who are eligible for coronary intervention, the uptake of a physiology-guided approach remains limited. The use of non-hyperaemic coronary pressure measurements to guide coronary interventions was introduced in an attempt to simplify the routine application of coronary physiology-guided intervention in daily practice. Over the past decade, a large scientific effort has focused on the development of several non-hyperaemic pressure ratios. In this Review, we detail the basic principles of coronary physiology in non-hyperaemic conditions, the rationale for the use of non-hyperaemic coronary pressure measurements for stenosis evaluation, the current evidence base for the available non-hyperaemic coronary pressure ratios, the basis for the discordance between non-hyperaemic coronary pressure ratios and fractional flow reserve, and the potential advantages of these new parameters over fractional flow reserve.Non-hyperaemic pressure measurements have emerged as a useful tool to guide coronary interventions and are recommended as a substitute for fractional flow reserve (FFR). In this Review, van de Hoef and colleagues explain the rationale for the use of non-hyperaemic pressure ratios instead of FFR for stenosis evaluation.