Revascularization Of Coronary Stenosis Research Articles

The Continuum of Invasive Techniques for the Assessment of Intermediate Coronary Lesions.

Ischemic heart disease is one of the most important causes of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Revascularization of coronary stenosis inducing ischemia, either by percutaneous or surgical intervention, significantly reduces major adverse cardiovascular events and improves quality of life. However, in cases of intermediate lesions, classified by a diameter stenosis between 50 and 90% by European guidelines and 40–70% in American counterparts with no clear evidence of ischemia, the indication of revascularization and impact is determined using various methods that altogether comprehensively evaluate the lesions. This review will discuss the various techniques to assess intermediate stenoses, highlighting indications and advantages, but also drawbacks. Fractional flow rate (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) are the gold standard for the functional evaluation of intermediate lesions, but there are clinical circumstances in which these pressure-wire-derived indices are not accurate. Complementary invasive investigations, mainly intravascular ultrasound and/or optical coherence tomography, offer parameters that can be correlated with FFR/iFR and additional insights into the morphology of the plaque guiding the eventual percutaneous intervention in terms of length and size of stents, thus improving the outcomes of the procedure. The development of artificial intelligence and machine learning with advanced algorithms of prediction will offer multiple scenarios for treatment, allowing real-time selection of the best strategy for revascularization.

The impact of lesion complexity on predicting mortality of coronary artery disease patients after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the most frequent cause of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Nevertheless, there have been limited studies focusing on the impact of lesion complexity on resuscitated CAD patients. The purpose of the present study was to investigate the association between coronary lesion complexity and the mortality of CAD patients after OHCA. From pooled database of two centers, which comprised 706 successfully resuscitated OHCA patients, 172 patients undergoing coronary angiography were retrospectively investigated. A total of 148 patients exhibited coronary stenosis on angiogram and were included in the final analysis. Baseline characteristics, pre-and post-hospital care, general status after resuscitation and angiographical findings were compared between the patients who deceased within 30days and those who survived and the predictors of 30-day mortality were determined. Ninety-four patients (63.5%) survived at 30days. Bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (Odds ratio (OR) 0.36; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14-0.96; P = 0.041), revascularization of coronary stenosis (OR 0.15; 95% CI 0.19-0.86; P < 0.001), GRACE risk score (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.02-1.05; P < 0.001) and SYNTAX score (OR 1.07; 95% CI 1.01-1.13; P = 0.025) were independent predictors of 30-day mortality. As multiple predictors such as bystander CPR, GRACE score and SYNTAX score were combined, the 30-day mortality gradually deteriorated. In addition to bystander CPR, GRACE score and revascularization, SYNTAX score independently predicted 30-day mortality of CAD patients after OHCA.

Comparison of clinical outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention versus optimal medical therapy based on gray-zone fractional flow reserve in stable angina patients with intermediate coronary artery stenosis (COMFORTABLE prospective study): Study protocol for a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BackgroundEven in the current drug-eluting stent era, revascularization for coronary stenosis with fractional flow reserve (FFR) between 0.75 and 0.80, the so-called “gray zone,” is a matter of debate. Previous studies have reported conflicting results regarding outcomes of revascularization versus deferral for coronary stenosis when FFR values are in the gray zone, but these studies have had differing designs and populations. We therefore will investigate whether medical therapy plus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is superior to medical therapy alone in reducing major cardiovascular events in patients presenting with coronary stenosis with gray zone FFR values.Methods/designThis is a prospective, multicenter, open-label, parallel group, randomized, controlled, superiority study. A total of 410 eligible participants will be recruited and randomized to either the medical therapy plus PCI group or the medical therapy alone group. The primary endpoint is 1-year major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), defined as a combined endpoint of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), or unplanned target vessel revascularization (TVR). Secondary endpoints include MACE at 2 and 5 years. Moreover, each individual component of the primary endpoint, cardiovascular death, target vessel-related and non-target vessel-related MI, all MI, clinically driven TVR or non-TVR, all revascularization, stent thrombosis, and angina symptom status will be evaluated at 1, 2, and 5 years.DiscussionThis is the first prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled study to investigate the superiority of medical therapy plus PCI over medical therapy by itself in reducing major cardiovascular events in patients presenting with coronary stenosis with “gray zone” FFR values. The results will help interventional cardiologists in making revascularization decisions regarding coronary stenosis with gray zone FFR values.Trial registrationUniversity Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry, UMIN000031526. Registered on 1 March 2018.

Revascularization Strategies in STEMI with Multivessel Disease: Deciding on Culprit Versus Complete-Ad Hoc or Staged.

This review will address the clinical conundrum of those who may derive clinical benefit from complete revascularization of coronary stenosis that are discovered at the time of ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The decision to revascularize additional vessels with angiographic stenosis beyond the culprit lesion remains controversial, as does the timing of revascularization. STEMI patients represent a high-risk patient population that have up to a 50% prevalence of multivessel disease. Multivessel disease represents an important risk factor for short- and long-term morbidity and mortality. Potential benefits of multivessel PCI for STEMI might include reduced short- and long-term mortality, revascularization, reduced resource utilization, and costs. Which population will benefit and what the optimal timing of revascularization in the peri-MI period remains controversial. Consideration of multivessel revascularization in the setting of STEMI may occur in up to one half of STEMI patients. Evaluation of the comorbidities including diabetes, extent of myocardium at risk, lesion complexity, ventricular function, and risk factors for complications such as contrast induced nephropathy which is important in determining the appropriate care pathway.