Miles W. Behan

Simple or Complex Stenting for Bifurcation Coronary Lesions A Patient-Level Pooled-Analysis of the Nordic Bifurcation Study and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study

Background— Controversy persists regarding the correct strategy for bifurcation lesions. Therefore, we combined the patient-level data from 2 large trials with similar methodology: the NORDIC Bifurcation Study (NORDIC I) and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study (BBC ONE). Methods and Results— Both randomized trials compared simple (provisional T-stenting) versus complex techniques, using drug-eluting stents. In the simple group (n=457), 129 patients had final kissing balloon dilatation in addition to main vessel stenting, and 16 had T-stenting. In the complex group (n=456), 272 underwent crush, 118 culotte, and 59 T-stenting techniques. A composite end point at 9 months of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization occurred in 10.1% of the simple versus 17.3% of the complex group (hazard ratio 1.84 [95% confidence interval 1.28 to 2.66], P =0.001). Procedure duration, contrast, and x-ray dose favored the simple approach. Subgroup analysis revealed similar composite end point results for true bifurcations (n=657, simple 9.2% versus complex 17.3%; hazard ratio 1.90 [95% confidence interval 1.22 to 2.94], P =0.004), wide-angled bifurcations >60 to 70° (n=217, simple 9.6% versus complex 15.7%; hazard ratio 1.67 [ 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 3.62], P =0.186), large (≥2.75 mm) diameter side branches (n=281, simple 10.4% versus complex 20.7%; hazard ratio 2.42 [ 95% confidence interval 1.22 to 4.80], P =0.011), longer length (>5 mm) ostial side branch lesions (n=464, simple 12.1% versus complex 19.1%; hazard ratio 1.71 [95% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.77], P =0.029), or equivalent sized vessels (side branch <0.25 mm smaller than main vessel) (n=108, simple 12.0% versus complex 15.5%; hazard ratio 1.35 [95% confidence interval 0.48 to 3.70], P =0.57). Conclusions— For bifurcation lesions, a provisional single-stent approach is superior to systematic dual stenting techniques in terms of safety and efficacy. A complex approach does not appear to be beneficial in more anatomically complicated lesions. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: . Unique identifier: NCT 00376571 and NCT 00351260.Background—Controversy persists regarding the correct strategy for bifurcation lesions. Therefore, we combined the patient-level data from 2 large trials with similar methodology: the NORDIC Bifurcation Study (NORDIC I) and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study (BBC ONE). Methods and Results—Both randomized trials compared simple (provisional T-stenting) versus complex techniques, using drug-eluting stents. In the simple group (n=457), 129 patients had final kissing balloon dilatation in addition to main vessel stenting, and 16 had T-stenting. In the complex group (n=456), 272 underwent crush, 118 culotte, and 59 T-stenting techniques. A composite end point at 9 months of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization occurred in 10.1% of the simple versus 17.3% of the complex group (hazard ratio 1.84 [95% confidence interval 1.28 to 2.66], P=0.001). Procedure duration, contrast, and x-ray dose favored the simple approach. Subgroup analysis revealed similar composite end point results for true bifurcations (n=657, simple 9.2% versus complex 17.3%; hazard ratio 1.90 [95% confidence interval 1.22 to 2.94], P=0.004), wide-angled bifurcations >60 to 70° (n=217, simple 9.6% versus complex 15.7%; hazard ratio 1.67 [ 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 3.62], P=0.186), large (≥2.75 mm) diameter side branches (n=281, simple 10.4% versus complex 20.7%; hazard ratio 2.42 [ 95% confidence interval 1.22 to 4.80], P=0.011), longer length (>5 mm) ostial side branch lesions (n=464, simple 12.1% versus complex 19.1%; hazard ratio 1.71 [95% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.77], P=0.029), or equivalent sized vessels (side branch <0.25 mm smaller than main vessel) (n=108, simple 12.0% versus complex 15.5%; hazard ratio 1.35 [95% confidence interval 0.48 to 3.70], P=0.57). Conclusions—For bifurcation lesions, a provisional single-stent approach is superior to systematic dual stenting techniques in terms of safety and efficacy. A complex approach does not appear to be beneficial in more anatomically complicated lesions. Clinical Trial Registration—URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT 00376571 and NCT 00351260.

A randomized trial of deferred stenting versus immediate stenting to prevent no- or slow-reflow in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (DEFER-STEMI).

Objectives The aim of this study was to assess whether deferred stenting might reduce no-reflow and salvage myocardium in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Background No-reflow is associated with adverse outcomes in STEMI. Methods This was a prospective, single-center, randomized, controlled, proof-of-concept trial in reperfused STEMI patients with ≥1 risk factors for no-reflow. Randomization was to deferred stenting with an intention-to-stent 4 to 16 h later or conventional treatment with immediate stenting. The primary outcome was the incidence of no-/slow-reflow (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction ≤2). Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging was performed 2 days and 6 months after myocardial infarction. Myocardial salvage was the final infarct size indexed to the initial area at risk. Results Of 411 STEMI patients (March 11, 2012 to November 21, 2012), 101 patients (mean age, 60 years; 69% male) were randomized (52 to the deferred stenting group, 49 to the immediate stenting). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) time to the second procedure in the deferred stenting group was 9 h (IQR: 6 to 12 h). Fewer patients in the deferred stenting group had no-/slow-reflow (14 [29%] vs. 3 [6%]; p = 0.006), no reflow (7 [14%] vs. 1 [2%]; p = 0.052) and intraprocedural thrombotic events (16 [33%] vs. 5 [10%]; p = 0.010). Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction coronary flow grades at the end of PCI were higher in the deferred stenting group (p = 0.018). Recurrent STEMI occurred in 2 patients in the deferred stenting group before the second procedure. Myocardial salvage index at 6 months was greater in the deferred stenting group (68 [IQR: 54% to 82%] vs. 56 [IQR: 31% to 72%]; p = 0.031]. Conclusions In high-risk STEMI patients, deferred stenting in primary PCI reduced no-reflow and increased myocardial salvage. (Deferred Stent Trial in STEMI; NCT01717573)

Percutaneous aortic valve implants under sedation: our initial experience.

We have developed an approach where percutaneous aortic valve (PAVI) procedures are done under remifentanil‐based sedation administered by an anesthetist. We report here our initial experience.

Simple or Complex Stenting for Bifurcation Coronary LesionsClinical Perspective

Background— Controversy persists regarding the correct strategy for bifurcation lesions. Therefore, we combined the patient-level data from 2 large trials with similar methodology: the NORDIC Bifurcation Study (NORDIC I) and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study (BBC ONE). Methods and Results— Both randomized trials compared simple (provisional T-stenting) versus complex techniques, using drug-eluting stents. In the simple group (n=457), 129 patients had final kissing balloon dilatation in addition to main vessel stenting, and 16 had T-stenting. In the complex group (n=456), 272 underwent crush, 118 culotte, and 59 T-stenting techniques. A composite end point at 9 months of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization occurred in 10.1% of the simple versus 17.3% of the complex group (hazard ratio 1.84 [95% confidence interval 1.28 to 2.66], P =0.001). Procedure duration, contrast, and x-ray dose favored the simple approach. Subgroup analysis revealed similar composite end point results for true bifurcations (n=657, simple 9.2% versus complex 17.3%; hazard ratio 1.90 [95% confidence interval 1.22 to 2.94], P =0.004), wide-angled bifurcations >60 to 70° (n=217, simple 9.6% versus complex 15.7%; hazard ratio 1.67 [ 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 3.62], P =0.186), large (≥2.75 mm) diameter side branches (n=281, simple 10.4% versus complex 20.7%; hazard ratio 2.42 [ 95% confidence interval 1.22 to 4.80], P =0.011), longer length (>5 mm) ostial side branch lesions (n=464, simple 12.1% versus complex 19.1%; hazard ratio 1.71 [95% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.77], P =0.029), or equivalent sized vessels (side branch <0.25 mm smaller than main vessel) (n=108, simple 12.0% versus complex 15.5%; hazard ratio 1.35 [95% confidence interval 0.48 to 3.70], P =0.57). Conclusions— For bifurcation lesions, a provisional single-stent approach is superior to systematic dual stenting techniques in terms of safety and efficacy. A complex approach does not appear to be beneficial in more anatomically complicated lesions. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: . Unique identifier: NCT 00376571 and NCT 00351260.Background—Controversy persists regarding the correct strategy for bifurcation lesions. Therefore, we combined the patient-level data from 2 large trials with similar methodology: the NORDIC Bifurcation Study (NORDIC I) and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study (BBC ONE). Methods and Results—Both randomized trials compared simple (provisional T-stenting) versus complex techniques, using drug-eluting stents. In the simple group (n=457), 129 patients had final kissing balloon dilatation in addition to main vessel stenting, and 16 had T-stenting. In the complex group (n=456), 272 underwent crush, 118 culotte, and 59 T-stenting techniques. A composite end point at 9 months of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization occurred in 10.1% of the simple versus 17.3% of the complex group (hazard ratio 1.84 [95% confidence interval 1.28 to 2.66], P=0.001). Procedure duration, contrast, and x-ray dose favored the simple approach. Subgroup analysis revealed similar composite end point results for true bifurcations (n=657, simple 9.2% versus complex 17.3%; hazard ratio 1.90 [95% confidence interval 1.22 to 2.94], P=0.004), wide-angled bifurcations >60 to 70° (n=217, simple 9.6% versus complex 15.7%; hazard ratio 1.67 [ 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 3.62], P=0.186), large (≥2.75 mm) diameter side branches (n=281, simple 10.4% versus complex 20.7%; hazard ratio 2.42 [ 95% confidence interval 1.22 to 4.80], P=0.011), longer length (>5 mm) ostial side branch lesions (n=464, simple 12.1% versus complex 19.1%; hazard ratio 1.71 [95% confidence interval 1.05 to 2.77], P=0.029), or equivalent sized vessels (side branch <0.25 mm smaller than main vessel) (n=108, simple 12.0% versus complex 15.5%; hazard ratio 1.35 [95% confidence interval 0.48 to 3.70], P=0.57). Conclusions—For bifurcation lesions, a provisional single-stent approach is superior to systematic dual stenting techniques in terms of safety and efficacy. A complex approach does not appear to be beneficial in more anatomically complicated lesions. Clinical Trial Registration—URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT 00376571 and NCT 00351260.

Clinical outcomes following radial versus femoral artery access in primary or rescue percutaneous coronary intervention in Scotland: retrospective cohort study of 4534 patients

Objective To assess short-term and medium-term outcomes following radial and femoral artery access for primary or rescue percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Scotland-wide. Patients All 4534 patients undergoing primary or rescue PCI in Scotland between April 2000 and March 2009 using the Scottish Coronary Revascularisation Register. Intervention Primary or rescue PCI. Main outcome measures Procedural success; peri-procedural complications; 30-day and 1-year mortality, myocardial infarction or stroke and long-term mortality. Results Use of the radial approach increased from no cases in 2000 to 924 (80.5%) in 2009 (p<0.001). Patients in whom the radial approach was used were more likely to be male (p=0.041) and to have multiple comorbidities (p<0.001), including hypertension (p<0.001) and left ventricular dysfunction (p<0.001). They were less likely to have renal impairment (p=0.017), multi-vessel coronary disease (p=0.001) and cardiogenic shock (p<0.001). In multivariable analyses, use of radial artery access was associated with greater procedural success (adjusted OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.26 – 2.82, p=0.002) and a lower risk of any complications (adjusted OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.51 – 0.87, p=0.001) or access site bleeding complications (adjusted OR 0.21, 0.08 – 0.56, p=0.002), as well as a lower risk of myocardial infarction (adjusted OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.51–0.87, p=0.003) or death within 30 days (adjusted OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.04 – 0.52, p<0.001). The differences in myocardial infarction and death remained significant up to 9 years of follow-up. Conclusion Use of the radial artery for primary or rescue PCI is associated with improved clinical outcomes.

Coronary bifurcation lesions treated with simple or complex stenting: 5-year survival from patient-level pooled analysis of the Nordic Bifurcation Study and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study

AIMS Randomized trials of coronary bifurcation stenting have shown better outcomes from a simple (provisional) strategy rather than a complex (planned two-stent) strategy in terms of short-term efficacy and safety. Here, we report the 5-year all-cause mortality based on pooled patient-level data from two large bifurcation coronary stenting trials with similar methodology: the Nordic Bifurcation Study (NORDIC I) and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study: old, new, and evolving strategies (BBC ONE). METHODS AND RESULTS Both multicentre randomized trials compared simple (provisional T-stenting) vs. complex (culotte, crush, and T-stenting) techniques, using drug-eluting stents. We analysed all-cause death at 5 years. Data were collected from phone follow-up, hospital records, and national mortality tracking. Follow-up was complete for 890 out of 913 patients (97%). Both Simple and Complex groups were similar in terms of patient and lesion characteristics. Five-year mortality was lower among patients who underwent a simple strategy rather than a complex strategy [17 patients (3.8%) vs. 31 patients (7.0%); P = 0.04]. CONCLUSION For coronary bifurcation lesions, a provisional single-stent approach appears to be associated with lower long-term mortality than a systematic dual stenting technique.

Percutaneous closure of an aortic paravalvular leak via the transradial approach

Percutaneous closure of aortic and mitral paraprosthetic leaks using the Amplatzer Occluders (muscular ventricular septal defect occluder) is now a well recognized procedure although as “off label” use. Aortic paravalvular leak closure is usually carried out via transfemoral puncture, but problems with this approach include the need to stop warfarin and the inadequate length of standard delivery sheaths. We report the first case of percutaneous aortic paravalvular leak closure through via the transradial route.

The EBC TWO Study (European Bifurcation Coronary TWO) A Randomized Comparison of Provisional T-Stenting Versus a Systematic 2 Stent Culotte Strategy in Large Caliber True Bifurcations

Background—For the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions, a provisional strategy is superior to systematic 2-stent techniques for the most bifurcation lesions. However, complex anatomies with large side branches (SBs) with significant ostial disease length are considered by expert consensus to warrant a 2-stent technique upfront. This consensus view has not been scientifically assessed. Methods and Results—Symptomatic patients with large caliber true bifurcation lesions (SB diameter ≥2.5 mm) and significant ostial disease length (≥5 mm) were randomized to either a provisional T-stent strategy or a dual stent culotte technique. Two hundred patients aged 64±10 years, 82% male, were randomized in 20 European centers. The clinical presentations were stable coronary disease (69%) and acute coronary syndromes (31%). SB stent diameter (2.67±0.27 mm) and length (20.30±5.89 mm) confirmed the extent of SB disease. Procedural success (provisional 97%, culotte 94%) and kissing balloon inflation (provisional 95%, culotte 98%) were high. Sixteen percent of patients in the provisional group underwent T-stenting. The primary end point (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization at 12 months) occurred in 7.7% of the provisional T-stent group versus 10.3% of the culotte group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.78–1.34; P=0.53). Procedure time, x-ray dose, and cost all favored the simpler procedure. Conclusions—When treating complex coronary bifurcation lesions with large stenosed SBs, there is no difference between a provisional T-stent strategy and a systematic 2-stent culotte strategy in a composite end point of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization at 12 months. Clinical Trial Registration—URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT 01560455.

The role of antiplatelet therapy in the secondary prevention of coronary artery disease

Purpose of review In this study, we review the evidence for both long-standing and newer oral antiplatelet agents as secondary prevention in coronary artery disease, and give our opinion on where each agents treatment role lies. Recent findings Platelets play a pathological role in acute coronary syndromes and are therefore a major therapeutic target. The caveat to this is that their physiological haemostatic role means there must be a careful balance between preventing ischaemia and not promoting bleeding. In addition to accepted oral agents (aspirin and clopidogrel), more potent antiplatelet agents have recently become available (prasugrel and ticagrelor) at a cost of increased bleeding. Summary There is now a choice of three antiplatelet agents to be used in conjunction with aspirin for secondary prevention with dual antiplatelet therapy. Clinicians must now ‘tailor’ the correct therapy for each patient, depending on their presentation, clinical features and stage of risk.

Use of troponin to diagnose periprocedural myocardial infarction: effect on composite endpoints in the British Bifurcation Coronary Study (BBC ONE).

Background Periprocedural myocardial infarction (PMI; ESC/ACC type 4a) is diagnosed on the basis of elevation of cardiac enzymes more than three times the 99th centile upper reference limit. Recent guidelines recommend the use of troponin instead of creatine kinase (CK) to diagnose PMI, but this assay increases diagnostic sensitivity, while the clinical significance of small increases in troponin remains undetermined. We examined the effects of using the new definition on the incidence of a composite endpoint (previously defined by CK) in a contemporary clinical randomised trial—the British Bifurcation Coronary Study (BBC ONE). Methods The BBC ONE trial randomly allocated 500 patients with coronary bifurcation lesions to either a simple or complex stenting strategy. The composite primary endpoint (CPEP) included death, myocardial infarction (MI) (PMI plus subsequent MI) and target vessel failure, at 9 months. Results In BBC ONE the CPEP occurred in 8% versus 15.2% in the simple and complex groups, respectively (HR 2.02, 95% CI 1.17 to 3.47, p=0.009). This difference was largely driven by PMI, which occurred in nine (3.6%) versus 28 (11.2%) patients (HR 3.24, 95% CI 1.53 to 6.86, p=0.001). Using troponin, PMI would have occurred in 71 (28.4%) versus 114 (45.6%) patients, respectively (HR 1.61, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.05, p=0.001), and the CPEP in 32% versus 48% of patients (HR 1.50, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.87, p=0.001). Use of troponin increased MI detection fivefold, from 7.4% to 37.0% overall. Conclusions Use of troponin would have led to a fivefold increase in diagnosis of PMI in the BBC ONE trial. Incorporation of PMI into a composite endpoint may no longer be justified in many interventional trials.