High-risk Complex Research Articles

Defining the optimal revascularization strategy during protected high-risk procedures with Impella.

Complete revascularization (CR) in patients with multi-vessel disease improves outcomes. The use of percutaneous left-ventricular assist devices, such as the Impella heart pump, is useful to minimize the risk of haemodynamic compromise in complex higher risk and clinically indicated patients. The recently published data from the PROTECT III trial suggest more CR during Impella-protected percutaneous coronary intervention with more extensive lesion preparation and treatment, resulting in the reduced need for repeat revascularization. To achieve CR and improve survival, procedural guidance by intravascular imaging, extensive lesion preparation, debulking with atherectomy devices, advanced chronic total occlusion revascularization techniques, and post-interventional treatment with modern anti-platelet medication are essential.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Polymer-Free Biolimus-Eluting Stent and Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting Stent in All-Comer Patients Who Underwent Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

We aim to compare Polymer-Free Biolimus-Eluting Stent (PF-BES) with Durable Polymer Everolimus-Eluting stent (DP-EES) in unselected patients. PF-BES showed a favorable profile in high-bleeding risk patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. Limited data are available on PF-BES compared with second-generation durable polymer-coated drug-eluting stents in patients eligible for standard dual antiplatelet therapy. A total of 848 consecutive patients were enrolled: 306 patients were treated with PF-BES and 542 with DP-EES. Stent performance was tested in a propensity score-matched population and in a Complex Higher-Risk and Indicated Patients (CHIP) subpopulation. A per-lesion analysis on 1,204 lesions (PF-BES = 424 vs DP-EES = 780) was also performed. At a medium follow-up of 18.5 ± 5.0 months, no differences in the matched population were found in terms of major adverse cardiac events (PF-BES 9.0% vs DP-EES 4.5%; p 0.091), myocardial infarction (PF-BES 6.2% vs DP-EES 2.3%; p 0.111), stent restenosis (PF-BES 2.3% vs DP-EES 0.0%; p 0.123), definite or probable stent thrombosis (PF-BES 2.8% vs DP-EES 1.1%; p 0.448). A significant inferior rate of restenosis was observed in the DP-EES arm in the whole (PF-BES 2.3% vs DP-EES 0.6%; p 0.041) and CHIP populations (PF-BES 4.3% vs DP-EES 0.5%; p 0.023), as well as in the per-lesion analysis (DP-EES 0.4% vs PF-BES 1.7%; p 0.039). In conclusion, in a real-world cohort PF-BES performed similarly to DP-EES in terms of restenosis and stent thrombosis in the matched population. Nonetheless, in the whole and CHIP populations, as well as in the per-lesion analysis, restenosis occurrence resulted higher in the PF-BES group.

ACHIEVEMENT OF GUIDELINE DIRECTED MEDICAL THERAPY GOALS IN COMPLEX HIGHER-RISK (AND INDICATED) PATIENTS UNDERGOING PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION

Complex higher risk and indicated patients (CHIP) represent a growing population referred for coronary revascularization. While technical and clinical features of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in this population are typically the area of focus for interventionalists, the concomitant

Management of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Complications.

With the recent increase in complex coronary interventions including percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for chronic total occlusions and complex higher risk (and indicated) patients, the spectrum of potential periprocedural complications and their prompt management has become even more relevant. Vascular access-related problems remain the most prevalent of all PCI complications and with randomized controlled trial data from over 20,000 patients supporting the superiority of radial over femoral access in reducing bleeding and vascular complications, a default radial strategy should be promoted. The European Society of Cardiology guidelines have acknowledged this by giving a class 1 (level of evidence: A) recommendation for a radial approach for PCI. The US society guidelines, however, have thus far lagged behind. Each individual patient undergoing a PCI should be risk-stratified objectively using available risk prediction models based on patient comorbidities and anatomical and procedural complexities. Customized informed consent should therefore be provided to all patients and should include the potential risks from radiation injury. Here, we review the current data related to common periprocedural complications related to PCI.