Explore the vast range of titles available.

In patients with multivessel disease and STEMI undergoing primary PCI, fractional flow reserve–guided complete revascularization of non–infarct-related arteries resulted in a lower risk of a composite cardiovascular outcome than treatment of the infarct-related artery only. Patients presenting with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) are best treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the infarct-related coronary artery and the implantation of stents. 1 , 2 Approximately 50% of these patients have additional, severe stenotic lesions in non–infarct-related coronary arteries. 3 – 6 The need for a high-quality, evidence-directed treatment strategy for non–infarct-related coronary artery lesions remains. On the basis of nonrandomized clinical trials, a conservative approach to non–infarct-related coronary artery lesions has been advocated previously. 1 , 2 , 7 Two randomized clinical trials challenged this concept by showing that the preventive use of stents for non–infarct-related coronary artery lesions in the . . .

In this trial, fractional flow reserve was used to assess the functional significance of coronary stenoses in patients with clinically stable coronary artery disease. The clinical outcomes were better when this technique was used to direct the use of coronary stenting. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) improves the outcome in patients with acute coronary syndromes. 1 In contrast, for the treatment of patients with stable coronary artery disease, controversy persists regarding the extent of the benefit from PCI, as compared with the best available medical therapy, as an initial management strategy. 2 – 5 The potential benefit of revascularization depends on the presence and extent of myocardial ischemia. 6 – 8 Performing PCI on nonischemic stenoses is not beneficial 9 and is probably harmful. 10 Thus, careful selection of ischemia-inducing stenoses is essential for deriving the greatest benefit from revascularization in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Fractional flow . . .

In this study, fractional flow reserve was used to identify patients with high-risk coronary stenoses, who received either PCI or medical therapy alone; patients with lower-risk lesions were entered in a registry. The PCI group had better outcomes than the medical-therapy group. The benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) as an initial treatment strategy in patients with stable coronary artery disease remains controversial. 1 – 3 The potential result from revascularization depends on the extent and the degree of myocardial ischemia. 4 , 5 A fractional flow reserve (FFR) value of 0.80 or less (i.e., a drop in maximal blood flow of 20% or more caused by stenosis), as measured with the use of a coronary pressure wire during catheterization, indicates the potential of a stenosis to induce myocardial ischemia. 6 – 8 In such cases, robust clinical-outcome data favor FFR-guided revascularization, as compared with revascularization guided by . . .

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) prior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is useful to guide treatment. Whether post-PCI FFR assessment might have clinical impact is controversial. The aim of this study is to evaluate the range of post-PCI FFR values and analyze the relationship between post-PCI FFR and clinical outcomes. We systematically searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases with cross-referencing of articles reporting post-PCI FFR and correlating post-PCI FFR values and clinical outcomes. The outcomes of interest were the immediate post-PCI FFR values and the correlations between post-PCI FFR and the incidence of repeat intervention and major adverse cardiac events (MACE). From 1995 to 2015, a total of 105 studies (n = 7470) were included, with 46 studies reporting post-PCI FFR and 59 studies evaluating relationship between post-PCI and clinical outcomes up to 30 months after PCI. Overall, post-PCI FFR values demonstrated a normal distribution with a mean value of 0.90 ± 0.04. There was a positive correlation between the percentage of stent use and post-PCI FFR (P < .0001). Meta-regression analysis indicated that higher post-PCI FFR values were associated with reduced rates of repeat intervention (P < .0001) and MACE (P = .0013). A post-PCI FFR ≥0.90 was associated with significantly lower risk of repeat PCI (odds ratio 0.43, 95% CI 0.34-0.56, P < .0001) and MACE (odds ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.59-0.85, P = .0003). FFR measurement after PCI was associated with prognostic significance. Further investigation is required to assess the role of post-PCI FFR and validate cutoff values in contemporary clinical practice.

The diagnosis of Takotsubo syndrome may be challenging in daily clinical practice. Our patient presented with an initial diagnosis of acute anterolateral ST elevation myocardial infarction, while coronary angiography showed non-obstructive coronary arteries. Transthoracic echocardiography raised the suspicion of hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM) and Takotsubo syndrome. In such clinical presentations, cardiac MRI (cMRI) plays a crucial role in differential diagnosis as part of a multimodality imaging approach. For our patient, serial cMRI studies helped to establish the diagnosis of Takotsubo syndrome during the index presentation and confirmed it retrospectively; the presence of transient hypertrophic cardiomyopathy phenocopy and left ventricular outflow tract obstruction (LVOTO) was partially due to transient oedema in the active phase of the condition. In addition, cMRI proved to be a key modality for excluding HOCM as a potential alternative cause of the dynamic LVOTO. With the implementation of complex guideline-directed medical therapy, the patient improved to the heart failure with improved ejection fraction category with a remarkable improvement in clinical status.

AbstractPurposeThe purpose of the present study was to find the independent predictors of Fractional Flow Reserve (FFR) measured immediately after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation (post-PCI FFR) and investigate if applying vessel-specific post-PCI FFR cut-off values to predict target vessel failure (TVF), a composite of cardiac death (CD), non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and target vessel revascularization (TVR), or a composite of CD and MI ameliorated its predictive power.MethodsConsecutive patients with post-PCI FFR measurement at our center between 2009 and 2021 were included in this analysis.ResultsA total of 434 patients with 500 vessels were included. Median pre-PCI FFR was 0.72 with no difference between LAD and non-LAD vessels. Median post-PCI FFR was 0.87. LAD location, male gender, smaller stent diameter, and lower pre-PCI FFR proved to be significant predictors of a lower post-PCI FFR. On a vessel-level, post-PCI FFR, stent length, and diabetes mellitus proved to be significant predictors of TVF and the composite of CD and MI. The best post-PCI FFR cut-off to predict TVF or a composite of CD and MI was 0.83 in the LAD and 0.91 in non-LAD vessels.ConclusionLAD location is a predictor of a lower post-PCI FFR. Post-PCI FFR is an independent predictor of TVF as well as of the composite of CD and MI. No uniform target post-PCI FFR value exists; different cut-off values may have to be applied in LAD as opposed to non-LAD vessels.

Background: Ischaemic preconditioning results in a reduction in ischaemic-reperfusion injury to the heart. This beneficial effect is seen both with direct local preconditioning of the myocardium and with remote preconditioning of easily accessible distant non-vital limb tissue. Ischaemic postconditioning with a comparable sequence of brief periods of local ischaemia, when applied immediately after the ischaemic insult, confers benefits similar to preconditioning. Objective: To test the hypothesis that limb ischaemia induces remote postconditioning and hence reduces experimental myocardial infarct size in a validated swine model of acute myocardial infarction. Methods: Acute myocardial infarction was induced in 24 pigs with 90 min balloon inflations of the left anterior descending coronary artery. Remote ischaemic postconditioning was induced in 12 of the pigs by four 5 min cycles of blood pressure cuff inflation applied to the lower limb immediately after the balloon deflation. Infarct size was assessed by measuring 72 h creatinine kinase release, MRI scan and immunohistochemical analysis. Results: Area under the curve of creatinine kinase release was significantly reduced in the postconditioning group compared with the control group with a 26% reduction in the infarct size (p<0.05). This was confirmed by MRI scanning and immunohistochemical analysis that revealed a 22% (p<0.05) and a 47.52% (p<0.01) relative reduction in the infarct size, respectively. Conclusion: Remote ischaemic postconditioning is a simple technique to reduce infarct size without the hazards and logistics of multiple coronary artery balloon inflations. This type of conditioning promises clear clinical potential.

Background/Objectives: Randomized studies of patients with unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease involve highly selected populations. Therefore, we sought to investigate the 60-month event-free survival of consecutive patients undergoing ULMCA percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and determine the best risk score system and independent predictors of event-free survival. Methods: All patients who underwent ULMCA PCI at our center between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2014 were included. The primary endpoint was the time to cardiac death, target lesion myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization (whichever came first) with a follow-up of 60 months. Results: A total of 513 patients (mean age 68 ± 12 years, 64% male, 157 elective, 356 acute) underwent ULMCA PCI. The 60-month incidence of events was 16.8% and 38.0% in elective and acute patients, respectively. There were significantly more events in the acute group during the first 6.5 months. Of the risk scores, the ACEF (AUC = 0.786) and SYNTAX II (AUC = 0.716) scores had the best predictive power in elective and acute patients, respectively. The SYNTAX score proved to be the least predictive in both groups (AUC = 0.638 and 0.614 in the elective and acute groups, respectively). Left ventricular function (hazard ratio (HR) for +10% 0.53 [95% CI, 0.38–0.75] and 0.81 [95% CI, 0.71–0.92] in elective and acute patients, respectively) and, in acute patients, access site (femoral vs. radial HR 1.76 [95% CI, 1.11–2.80]), hyperlipidemia (HR 0.58 [95% CI, 0.39–0.86]), and renal function (HR for +10 mL/min/1.73 m2 higher GFR: 0.87 [95% CI, 0.78–0.97]) were independent predictors of event-free survival. Conclusions: Acute ULMCA PCI patients have worse prognosis than elective patients, having more events during the first 6.5 months. Besides anatomical complexity, clinical and procedural parameters determine the prognosis.

Invasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) is the gold standard for guiding coronary revascularization. Angiography-derived FFR techniques such as the quantitative flow ratio (QFR) provide a less invasive alternative. Prior studies generally demonstrated good agreement between QFR and FFR, but the effect of hydrostatic pressure differences has not been quantitated as a potential source of systematic discrepancy. We investigated whether correcting invasive FFR for hydrostatic pressure error improved its agreement with QFR in the left anterior descending artery (LAD) lesions. We studied 33 coronary lesions in the LAD. Invasive FFR was measured using the standard pressure-wire technique under hyperemia. Murray law-based QFR (μQFR) was computed from invasive coronary angiography. The vertical height difference between the coronary ostium and the distal sensor position was measured on coronary angiographic images from a lateral view, and the hydrostatic pressure offset was added to the distal pressure reading. FFR was recalculated with this hydrostatic correction. We compared uncorrected FFR and hydrostatic pressure-corrected FFR against μQFR. Hydrostatic correction increased the mean FFR from 0.78 ± 0.11 to 0.81 ± 0.10 (  < 0.0001), virtually matching the mean μQFR (0.81 ± 0.10). The Pearson correlation between μQFR and FFR was high both before and after correction (  = 0.95,  < 0.0001). However, Bland-Altman analysis showed that correcting the hydrostatic error eliminated the small bias between FFR and μQFR (mean difference bias improved from +0.03 to 0.00). By ROC analysis, an uncorrected FFR <0.80 was best predicted by μQFR <0.84 [area under the curve (AUC) 0.976], whereas using hydrostatic pressure-corrected FFR <0.80 corresponded to a μQFR threshold <0.78 (AUC 0.977). Correcting FFR for hydrostatic pressure improved its agreement with μQFR, suggesting that accounting for this error may enhance the consistency of physiologic lesion assessments.

Background: In high-risk patients with degenerated aortic bioprostheses, valve-in-valve (ViV) transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has emerged as a less invasive alternative to surgical valve replacement. To compare outcomes of ViV and native valve (NV) TAVI procedures. Methods: 34 aortic ViV-TAVI performed between 2012 and 2022 using self-expanding valves, were included in this retrospective analysis. Propensity score matching (1:2 ratio, 19 criteria) was used to select a comparison NV-TAVI group from a database of 1206 TAVI procedures. Clinical and echocardiographic endpoints, short- and long-term all-cause mortality (ACM) and cardiovascular mortality (CVM) data were obtained. Subgroup analyses were completed according to the true internal diameter, dividing patients into a small (≤19 mm) valve group (SVG) and a large (>19 mm) valve group (LVG). Results: Clinical outcomes of ViV- and NV-TAVI were comparable, including device success [88.2% vs. 91.1%, p = 0.727], major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events [5.8% vs. 5.8%, p = 1.000], hemodialysis need [5.8% vs. 2.9%, p = 0.599], pacemaker need [2.9% vs. 11.7%, p = 0.265], major vascular complications [2.9% vs. 1.4%, p = 1.000], life-threatening or major bleeding [2.9% vs. 1.4%, p = 1.000] and in-hospital mortality [8.8% vs. 5.9%, p = 0.556]. There was a significant difference in the immediate post-intervention mean residual aortic valve gradient (MAVG) [14.6 ± 8.5 mm Hg vs. 6.4 ± 4.5 mm Hg, p < 0.0001], which persisted at 1 year [p = 0.0002]. There were no differences in 12- or 30-month ACM [11.8% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.588; 23.5% vs. 27.9%, p = 0.948], and CVM [11.8% vs. 7.3%, p = 0.441; 23.5% vs. 16.2%, p = 0.239]. Lastly, there was no difference in CVM at 1 year and 30 months [11.1% vs. 12.5%, p = 0.889; 22.2% vs. 25.0%, p = 0.742]. Conclusions: Analyzing a limited group (n = 34) of ViV-TAVI procedures out of 1206 TAVIs done at a single institution, ViV-TAVI appeared to be an acceptable approach in patients not deemed appropriate candidates for redo valve replacement surgery. Clinical outcomes of ViV-TAVI were comparable to TAVI for native valve stenosis.