Ferdinando Varbella

Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial

BACKGROUND It is unclear whether radial compared with femoral access improves outcomes in unselected patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management. METHODS We did a randomised, multicentre, superiority trial comparing transradial against transfemoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who were about to undergo coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to radial or femoral access with a web-based system. The randomisation sequence was computer generated, blocked, and stratified by use of ticagrelor or prasugrel, type of acute coronary syndrome (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, troponin positive or negative, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome), and anticipated use of immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events, defined as major adverse cardiovascular events or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The analysis was by intention to treat. The two-sided α was prespecified at 0·025. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01433627. FINDINGS We randomly assigned 8404 patients with acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation, to radial (4197) or femoral (4207) access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. 369 (8·8%) patients with radial access had major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with 429 (10·3%) patients with femoral access (rate ratio [RR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·74-0·99; p=0·0307), non-significant at α of 0·025. 410 (9·8%) patients with radial access had net adverse clinical events compared with 486 (11·7%) patients with femoral access (0·83, 95% CI 0·73-0·96; p=0·0092). The difference was driven by BARC major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (1·6% vs 2·3%, RR 0·67, 95% CI 0·49-0·92; p=0·013) and all-cause mortality (1·6% vs 2·2%, RR 0·72, 95% CI 0·53-0·99; p=0·045). INTERPRETATION In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management, radial as compared with femoral access reduces net adverse clinical events, through a reduction in major bleeding and all-cause mortality. FUNDING The Medicines Company and Terumo.

Bivalirudin or Unfractionated Heparin in Acute Coronary Syndromes

BACKGROUND Conflicting evidence exists on the efficacy and safety of bivalirudin administered as part of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with an acute coronary syndrome. METHODS We randomly assigned 7213 patients with an acute coronary syndrome for whom PCI was anticipated to receive either bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin. Patients in the bivalirudin group were subsequently randomly assigned to receive or not to receive a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion. Primary outcomes for the comparison between bivalirudin and heparin were the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and net adverse clinical events (a composite of major bleeding or a major adverse cardiovascular event). The primary outcome for the comparison of a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion with no post-PCI infusion was a composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events. RESULTS The rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with heparin (10.3% and 10.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 1.09; P=0.44), nor was the rate of net adverse clinical events (11.2% and 12.4%, respectively; relative risk, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.03; P=0.12). Post-PCI bivalirudin infusion, as compared with no infusion, did not significantly decrease the rate of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events (11.0% and 11.9%, respectively; relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.11; P=0.34). CONCLUSIONS In patients with an acute coronary syndrome, the rates of major adverse cardiovascular events and net adverse clinical events were not significantly lower with bivalirudin than with unfractionated heparin. The rate of the composite of urgent target-vessel revascularization, definite stent thrombosis, or net adverse clinical events was not significantly lower with a post-PCI bivalirudin infusion than with no post-PCI infusion. (Funded by the Medicines Company and Terumo Medical; MATRIX ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01433627.).

A Randomized Multicenter Study Comparing a Paclitaxel Drug-Eluting Balloon With a Paclitaxel-Eluting Stent in Small Coronary Vessels: The BELLO (Balloon Elution and Late Loss Optimization) Study

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES) for the reduction of restenosis in small vessels. BACKGROUND DEB have been shown to be effective in the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis, but data are limited regarding their efficacy in de novo disease. METHODS BELLO (Balloon Elution and Late Loss Optimization) is a prospective, multicenter trial that randomized 182 patients with lesions located in small vessels (reference diameter <2.8 mm) to treatment with paclitaxel DEB and provisional bare-metal stenting (n = 90) or PES implantation (n = 92). The primary endpoint was noninferiority of angiographic in-stent (in-balloon) late loss with a delta of 0.25 mm. Secondary endpoints were angiographic restenosis, target lesion revascularization, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE; death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization) at 6 months. RESULTS Baseline characteristics were well matched, except for a smaller vessel size in the DEB group (2.15 ± 0.27 mm vs. 2.25 ± 0.24 mm; p = 0.003). The majority (89%) of lesions involved vessels with a diameter <2.5 mm. Bailout stenting was required in 20% of lesions in the DEB group. The primary endpoint of in-stent (in-balloon) late loss was significantly less with DEB compared with PES (0.08 ± 0.38 mm vs. 0.29 ± 0.44 mm; difference -0.21; 95% CI: -0.34 to -0.09; p(noninferiority) < 0.001; p(superiority) = 0.001). At 6 months, DEB and PES were associated with similar rates of angiographic restenosis (10% vs. 14.6%; p = 0.35), [corrected] target lesion revascularization (4.4% vs. 7.6%; p = 0.37), and MACE (10% vs. 16.3%; p = 0.21). [corrected]. CONCLUSIONS Treatment of small-vessel disease with a paclitaxel DEB was associated with less angiographic late loss and similar rates of restenosis and revascularization as a PES. (Balloon Elution and Late Loss Optimization [BELLO]; Study NCT01086579).

A prospective, randomized trial of intravascular-ultrasound guided compared to angiography guided stent implantation in complex coronary lesions: The AVIO trial

BACKGROUND No randomized studies have thus far evaluated intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance in the drug-eluting stent (DES) era. The aim was to evaluate if IVUS optimized DES implantation was superior to angiographic guidance alone in complex lesions. METHODS Randomized, multicentre, international, open label, investigator-driven study evaluating IVUS vs angiographically guided DES implantation in patients with complex lesions (defined as bifurcations, long lesions, chronic total occlusions or small vessels). Primary study endpoint was post-procedure in lesion minimal lumen diameter. Secondary end points were combined major adverse cardiac events (MACE), target lesion revascularization, target vessel revascularization, myocardial infarction (MI), and stent thrombosis at 1, 6, 9, 12, and 24 months. RESULTS The study included 284 patients. No significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics. The primary study end point showed a statistically significant difference in favor of the IVUS group (2.70 mm ± 0.46 mm vs. 2.51 ± 0.46 mm; P = .0002). During hospitalization, no patient died, had repeated revascularization, or a Q-wave MI. No difference was observed in the occurrence of non-Q wave MI (6.3% in IVUS vs. 7.0% in angio-guided group). At 24-months clinical follow-up, no differences were still observed in cumulative MACE (16.9%vs. 23.2 %), cardiac death (0%vs. 1.4%), MI (7.0%vs. 8.5%), target lesion revascularization (9.2% vs. 11.9%) or target vessel revascularization (9.8% vs. 15.5%), respectively in the IVUS vs. angio-guided groups. In total, only one definite subacute stent thrombosis occurred in the IVUS group. CONCLUSIONS A benefit of IVUS optimized DES implantation was observed in complex lesions in the post-procedure minimal lumen diameter. No statistically significant difference was found in MACE up to 24 months.

Management strategies in patients affected by chronic total occlusions: results from the Italian Registry of Chronic Total Occlusions

BACKGROUND Through contemporary literature, the optimal strategy to manage coronary chronic total occlusions (CTOs) remains under debate. OBJECTIVES The aim of the Italian Registry of Chronic Total Occlusions (IRCTO) was to provide data on prevalence, characteristics, and outcome of CTO patients according to the management strategy. METHODS The IRCTO is a prospective real world multicentre registry enrolling patients showing at least one CTO. Clinical and angiographic data were collected independently from the therapeutic strategy [optimal medical therapy (MT), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)]; a comparative 1-year clinical follow-up was performed. RESULTS A total of 1777 patients were enrolled for an overall CTO prevalence of 13.3%. The adopted therapeutic strategies were as follows: MT in 826 patients (46.5%), PCI in 776 patients (43.7%), and CABG in the remaining 175 patients (9.8%). At 1-year follow-up, patients undergoing PCI showed lower rate of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) (2.6% vs. 8.2% and vs. 6.9%; P < 0.001 and P < 0.01) and cardiac death (1.4% vs. 4.7% and vs. 6.3%; P < 0.001 and P < 0.001) in comparison with those treated with MT and CABG, respectively. After propensity score-matching analysis, patients treated with PCI showed lower incidence of cardiac death (1.5 vs. 4.4%; P < 0.001), acute myocardial infarction (1.1 vs. 2.9%; P = 0.03), and re-hospitalization (2.3 vs. 4.4% P = 0.04) in comparison with those managed by MT. CONCLUSIONS Our data showed how CTO PCI might significantly improve the survival and decrease MACCE occurrence at 1 year follow-up in comparison with MT and/or CABG.

Incidence, Management, and Immediate- and Long-Term Outcomes After Iatrogenic Aortic Dissection During Diagnostic or Interventional Coronary Procedures

Background— Aortic dissection type A is a disease with high mortality. Iatrogenic aortic dissection after interventional procedures is infrequent, and prognostic data are scarce. Our objective was to analyze its incidence, patient profile, and long-term prognosis. Methods and Results— Between 2000 and 2014, we retrospectively analyzed 74 patients with dissection of the ascending aorta. Clinical and procedural data were reviewed, and later, we performed a prospective clinical follow-up by telephone or in the office. The incidence of aortic dissection was 0.06%. Our patients, predominantly male (67.6%), had a mean age of 66.9±10.8 years. With multiple cardiovascular risk factors, the main reason for cardiac catheterization was an acute coronary syndrome (n=54). The complication was detected acutely in all, trying to engage the right coronary artery in 47 and the left main artery in 30 and after other maneuvers in 2, mostly complex therapeutic procedures (78.4%). A coronary artery was involved in 45 patients (60.8%). Thirty-five patients underwent an angioplasty and stent implantation; 3 had cardiac surgery; and 36 were managed conservatively. Two patients died of cardiogenic shock after the dissection. After a median follow-up of 51.2 months (range, 16.4–104.8 months), none of the remaining patients developed complications as a result of the dissection, progression, ischemia, pain, or dissection recurrence. Conclusions— Iatrogenic catheter dissection of the aorta is a rare complication that carries an excellent short- and long-term prognosis with the adoption of a conservative approach. When a coronary artery is involved as an entry point, it usually can be safely sealed with a stent with good long-term outcomes.

A 2-year follow-up of a randomized multicenter study comparing a paclitaxel drug-eluting balloon with a paclitaxel-eluting stent in small coronary vessels the BELLO study.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES A prospective, multi-center, randomized trial, BELLO (Balloon Elution and Late Loss Optimization), showed that the primary endpoint of in-stent (in-balloon) late loss was significantly less with drug-eluting balloons (DEB) as compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents (PES). At 6 months, DEB and PES were associated with similar rates of angiographic restenosis, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as death, myocardial infarction and target vessel revascularization. The aim of this study was to report 2-year clinical outcomes after treatment of de novo small vessel disease with DEB as compared with PES. METHODS A total of 182 patients were enrolled and randomized to treatment with DEB (n=90) in 94 lesions or PES (n=92) in 98 lesions. The study endpoint was the incidence of MACE at 2-year follow-up. RESULTS Two-year follow-up was achieved in almost all cases (97.8% in DEB group vs. 98.9% in PES group). There was a trend towards a lower incidence of MACE in the DEB group as compared with the PES group (14.8% vs. 25.3%; p=0.08). TLR rates in the DEB group were acceptable at 6 months, 1 year and 2 years and did not differ significantly from the PES group (4.4% vs. 7.6%, p=0.37; 6.7% vs. 12.1%, p=0.23; 6.8% vs. 12.1%, p=0.25, respectively). CONCLUSIONS Our results suggest that treatment of small vessel disease with a paclitaxel DEB is associated with a trend for improved clinical outcomes as compared with PES up to 2 years. Late catch-up phenomenon requiring repeat intervention after treatment with DEB was not evident in this study.

Provisional vs. two-stent technique for unprotected left main coronary artery disease after ten years follow up: A propensity matched analysis

AIMS There is uncertainty on which stenting approach confers the best long-term outlook for unprotected left main (ULM) bifurcation disease. METHODS AND RESULTS This is a non-randomized, retrospective study including all consecutive patients with 50% stenosis of the left main involving at least 1 of the arteries stemming from the left main treated with drug-eluting stents (DES) in 9 European centers between 2002 and 2004. Patients were divided into two groups: those treated with provisional stentings vs. those treated with two stent strategy. The outcomes of interest were 10-year rates of target lesion revascularization (TLR), major adverse cardiac events (MACE), and their components (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction [MI], or repeat revascularization), along with stent thrombosis (ST). A total of 285 patients were included, 178 (62.5%) in the provisional stenting group and 87 (37.5%) in the two stent group. After 10 years, no differences in TLR were found at unadjusted analysis (19% vs 25%, p>0.05) nor after propensity score matching (25% vs 28%, p>0.05). Similar rates of MACE (60% vs 66%, p>0.05), death (34% vs 43%, p>0.05), MI (9% vs 14%, p>0.05) and ST were also disclosed at propensity-based analysis. CONCLUSION Even after 10 year follow-up, patients treated with provisional stenting on left main showed comparable rates of target lesion revascularization compared to two stent strategy.

Incidence and outcome of switching of oral platelet P2Y12 receptor inhibitors in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the SCOPE registry

AIMS In patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), switching of oral P2Y12 receptor inhibitors may frequently occur. We aimed to assess the current incidence of switching of oral P2Y12 receptor inhibitors and its safety in consecutive ACS patients undergoing PCI over a three-month period. METHODS AND RESULTS The SCOPE registry was a multicentre, observational, prospective study. A total of 1,363 consecutive patients were enrolled in 39 PCI centres across Italy. Switching of oral antiplatelet therapies occurred in 2.3% in the cathlab, 3.3% at discharge and 5.1% at follow-up. The cumulative incidence of major adverse cerebrovascular events (MACE) and net adverse cerebrovascular events (NACE: a combination of MACE and bleeding events) was 1.6% and 5.6%, respectively. Among patients receiving an upgrade switching (change from old to novel P2Y12 receptor inhibitors), no ischaemic or bleeding events occurred during the whole study period. On the other hand, downgrade switching (from novel to old P2Y12 receptor inhibitors) was an independent predictor of NACE (OR 5.3; CI: 2.1-18.2; p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS Switching of oral antiplatelet therapies is not uncommon among ACS patients undergoing PCI. Notably, switching from clopidogrel to novel P2Y12 receptor inhibitors appears safe, while a downgrade switching in early phases of ACS is associated with adverse clinical events.

MGUard versus bAre-metal stents plus manual thRombectomy in ST-elevation myocarDial infarction pAtieNts-(GUARDIAN) trial: study design and rationale.

Background: Distal embolization may decrease coronary and myocardial reperfusion after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in ST‐elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). In this setting, manual thrombectomy (MT) resulted in better perfusion and clinical outcomes when compared with “conventional” PCI (direct stenting or stenting after predilation). MGuard net protective stent (MGS, Inspire‐MD, Tel‐Aviv, Israel) is a new bare‐metal stent (BMS) with a polyethylene theraphthalate mesh coverage anchored to the external surface of the struts aiming to minimize distal embolization during PCI. Purpose: We intend to determine whether MGS implantation is comparable with a strategy of MT pretreatment followed by BMS deployment. Study design: The MGUard versus bAre‐metal stents plus manual thRombectomy in ST‐elevation myocarDial Infarction pAtieNts (GUARDIAN) is a multicentre, prospective, randomized, noninferiority, open‐label trial with a planned inclusion of 556 STEMI patients. Patients are assigned to treatment with MGS or MT pretreatment followed by BMS implantation in the infarct‐related artery. All patients are treated medically according to current international guidelines. Randomization is performed before coronary angiography. The primary endpoint is complete (≥70%) ST‐segment resolution at 60 min after PCI. Secondary endpoints are thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) coronary flow grade ≥2, corrected TIMI frame count <23, myocardial blush grade of the infarct related area ≥2, and major adverse cardiac events rate at 30‐day, 6‐month, and 1‐year follow‐up. A cardiac magnetic resonance imaging substudy is planned to investigate microvascular obstruction and infarct size area reduction, at prespecified time‐points, among 80 consecutive patients enrolled. Conclusions: If MGS implantation is noninferior to a strategy of MT pretreatment followed by BMS deployment, it will lend support to the use of this treatment as another possible option for STEMI patients undergoing PCI.