Yuki Katagiri

Late thrombotic events after bioresorbable scaffold implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Aims To compare the long-term safety and efficacy of bioresorbable vascular scaffold (BVS) with everolimus-eluting stent (EES) after percutaneous coronary interventions. Methods and results A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing clinical outcomes of patients treated with BVS and EES with at least 24 months follow-up was performed. Adjusted random-effect model by the Knapp-Hartung method was used to compute odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The primary safety outcome of interest was the risk of definite/probable device thrombosis (DT). The primary efficacy outcome of interest was the risk of target lesion failure (TLF). Five randomized clinical trials (n = 1730) were included. Patients treated with Absorb BVS had a higher risk of definite/probable DT compared with patients treated with EES (OR 2.93, 95%CI 1.37-6.26, P = 0.01). Very late DT (VLDT) occurred in 13 patients [12/996 (1.4%, 95%CI: 0.08-2.5) Absorb BVS vs. 1/701 (0.5%, 95%CI: 0.2-1.6) EES; OR 3.04; 95%CI 1.2-7.68, P = 0.03], 92% of the VLDT in the BVS group occurred in the absence of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). Patients treated with Absorb BVS had a trend towards higher risk of TLF (OR 1.48, 95%CI 0.90-2.42, P = 0.09), driven by a higher risk of target vessel myocardial infarction and ischaemia-driven target lesion revascularization. No difference was found in the risk of cardiac death. Conclusion Compared with EES, the use of Absorb BVS was associated with a higher rate of DT and a trend towards higher risk of TLF. VLDT occurred in 1.4% of the patients, the majority of these events occurred in the absence of DAPT.

Single or dual antiplatelet therapy after PCI

The optimal duration and type of antiplatelet therapy after implantation of a drug-eluting stent (DES) remains uncertain. At the time of the first-in-man implantation of the sirolimus DES in 1999, the protocol-defined dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) duration was only 2 months. Subsequently, DAPT duration was extended to 1 year on the basis of anecdotal historical data, and this practice was then incorporated into clinical guidelines. For >1 decade, trialists have sought to compare the safety and efficacy of abbreviated (<6 months) and prolonged (>12 months) DAPT regimens. However, the body of evidence is limited by the heterogeneity of end points, time of randomization, and bleeding criteria used in each trial. Pharmaceutical advances led to the introduction of new ADP-receptor antagonists, which are thought to be more effective than clopidogrel. The ADP-receptor antagonists moved the focus from the optimal duration of DAPT to the potential efficacy of single antiplatelet therapy after DES implantation. In this Review, we summarize the current evidence on the duration of DAPT and the risk of bleeding and adverse cardiac events after DES implantation, and describe the pitfalls of trial interpretation. The ongoing, prospective trials to test single antiplatelet therapy after DES implantation are also discussed.

A novel synchronised diastolic injection method to reduce contrast volume during aortography for aortic regurgitation assessment : in vitro experiment of a transcatheter heart valve model

AIMS In the minimalist transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) era, the usage of transoesophageal echocardiography has become restricted. Conversely, aortography has gained clinical ground in quantifying prosthetic valve regurgitation (PVR) during the procedure. In a mock circulation system, we sought to compare the contrast volume required and the accuracy of aortographic videodensitometric PVR assessment using a synchronised diastolic and standard (non-synchronised) injection aortography. METHODS AND RESULTS Synchronised diastolic injection triggered by the signal stemming from the mock circulation was compared with standard non-synchronised injection. A transcatheter heart valve was implanted and was deformed step by step by advancing a screw perpendicularly to the cage of the valve in order to create increasing PVR. Quantitative measurement of PVR was derived from time-density curves of both a reference area (aortic root) and a region of interest (left ventricle) developed by a videodensitometric software. The volume of contrast required for the synchronised diastolic injection was significantly less than in the non-synchronised injection (8.1 [7.9-8.5] ml vs. 19.4 [19.2-19.9] ml, p<0.001). The correlation between the two methods was substantial (Spearmans coefficient rho ranging from 0.991 to 0.968). Intraobserver intra-class correlation coefficient for both methods of injection was 0.999 (95% CI: 0.996-1.000) for the synchronised diastolic and 0.999 (95% CI: 0.996-1.000) for the non-synchronised injection group. The mean difference in the rating was 0.17% and limits of agreement were ±1.64% for both groups. CONCLUSIONS A short synchronised diastolic injection enables contrast volume reduction during aortography without compromising the accuracy of the quantitative assessment of PVR using videodensitometry.

A sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer-coated stent (MiStent) versus an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience) after percutaneous coronary intervention (DESSOLVE III): a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND MiStent is a drug-eluting stent with a fully absorbable polymer coating containing and embedding a microcrystalline form of sirolimus into the vessel wall. It was developed to overcome the limitation of current durable polymer drug-eluting stents eluting amorphous sirolimus. The clinical effect of MiStent sirolimus-eluting stent compared with a durable polymer drug-eluting stents has not been investigated in a large randomised trial in an all-comer population. METHODS We did a randomised, single-blind, multicentre, phase 3 study (DESSOLVE III) at 20 hospitals in Germany, France, Netherlands, and Poland. Eligible participants were any patients aged at least 18 years who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention in a lesion and had a reference vessel diameter of 2·50-3·75 mm. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to implantation of either a sirolimus-eluting bioresorbable polymer stent (MiStent) or an everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent (Xience). Randomisation was done by local investigators via web-based software with random blocks according to centre. The primary endpoint was a non-inferiority comparison of a device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE)-cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or clinically indicated target lesion revascularisation-between the groups at 12 months after the procedure assessed by intention-to-treat. A margin of 4·0% was defined for non-inferiority of the MiStent group compared with the Xience group. All participants were included in the safety analyses. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02385279. FINDINGS Between March 20, and Dec 3, 2015, we randomly assigned 1398 patients with 2030 lesions; 703 patients with 1037 lesions were assigned to MiStent, of whom 697 received the index procedure, and 695 patients with 993 lesions were asssigned to Xience, of whom 690 received the index procedure. At 12 months, the primary endpoint had occurred in 40 patients (5·8%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and in 45 patients (6·5%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group (absolute difference -0·8% [95% CI -3·3 to 1·8], pnon-inferiority=0·0001). Procedural complications occurred in 12 patients (1·7%) in the sirolimus-eluting stent group and ten patients (1·4%) in the everolimus-eluting stent group; no clinical adverse events could be attributed to these dislodgements through a minimum of 12 months of follow-up. The rate of stent thrombosis, a safety indicator, did not differ between groups and was low in both treatment groups. INTERPRETATION The sirolimus-eluting bioabsorbable polymer stent was non-inferior to the everolimus-eluting durable polymer stent for a device-oriented composite clinical endpoint at 12 months in an all-comer population. MiStent seems a reasonable alternative to other stents in clinical practice. FUNDING The European Cardiovascular Research Institute, Micell Technologies (Durham, NC, USA), and Stentys (Paris, France).

Is quantitative coronary angiography reliable in assessing the late lumen loss of the everolimus-eluting bioresorbable polylactide scaffold in comparison with the cobalt-chromium metallic stent?

AIMS Immediately after stent/scaffold implantation, quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) in comparison to optical coherence tomography (OCT) more severely underestimates the lumen diameter (LD) in Absorb than in XIENCE. This OCT-QCA discrepancy has not been evaluated at long-term follow-up. The present study aimed to assess the accuracy of QCA with reference to OCT in Absorb as compared to XIENCE. METHODS AND RESULTS We assessed two-year QCA and OCT in the ABSORB Japan randomised trial (Absorb n=87, XIENCE n=44). The accuracy of QCA parameters was assessed with reference to OCT measurements. OCT-QCA luminal dimensions were compared in matched cross-sections at both edges of the scaffolds (n=127) and stents (n=78). OCT-QCA late lumen loss (LLL) was also assessed using the Bland-Altman method. The systematic error of LD on QCA in Absorb was -0.092 mm (relative difference -3.3%) with a random error of 0.473 mm, whereas in XIENCE the systematic error was -0.018 mm (-0.5%) with a random error of 0.477 mm. These OCT-QCA discrepancies did not differ between Absorb and XIENCE (p=0.275) at two-year follow-up. QCA tended to underestimate LLL more in Absorb than in XIENCE (QCA-LLL minus OCT-LLL: -0.180±0.308 mm vs. -0.058±0.322 mm, p=0.058) at two-year follow-up, although this comparison was not statistically powered. CONCLUSIONS The two-year dimensional measurements on QCA had minor and insignificant systematic errors between both devices. A discrepancy between QCA-LLL and OCT-LLL would raise a question as to whether this parameter is appropriate for the comparative assessment of device performance.

Diagnostic performance of angiography-derived fractional flow reserve: a systematic review and Bayesian meta-analysis

Aims Pressure-wire assessment of coronary stenosis is considered the invasive reference standard for detection of ischaemia-generating lesions. Recently, methods to estimate the fractional flow reserve (FFR) from conventional angiography without the use of a pressure wire have been developed, and were shown to have an excellent diagnostic accuracy. The present systematic review and meta-analysis aimed at determining the diagnostic performance of angiography-derived FFR for the diagnosis of haemodynamically significant coronary artery disease. Methods and results A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies assessing the diagnostic performance of angiography-derived FFR systems were performed. The primary outcome of interest was pooled sensitivity and specificity. Thirteen studies comprising 1842 vessels were included in the final analysis. A Bayesian bivariate meta-analysis yielded a pooled sensitivity of 89% (95% credible interval 83-94%), specificity of 90% (95% credible interval 88-92%), positive likelihood ratio (+LR) of 9.3 (95% credible interval 7.3-11.7) and negative likelihood ratio (-LR) of 0.13 (95% credible interval 0.07-0.2). The summary area under the receiver-operating curve was 0.84 (95% credible interval 0.66-0.94). Meta-regression analysis did not find differences between the methods for pressure-drop calculation (computational fluid dynamics vs. mathematical formula), type of analysis (on-line vs. off-line) or software packages. Conclusion The accuracy of angiography-derived FFR was good to detect haemodynamically significant lesions with pressure-wire measured FFR as a reference. Computational approaches and software packages did not influence the diagnostic accuracy of angiography-derived FFR. A diagnostic strategy trial with angiography-derived FFR evaluating clinical endpoints is warranted.

CVIT expert consensus document on primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in 2018

While primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has significantly contributed to improve the mortality in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction even in cardiogenic shock, primary PCI is a standard of care in most of Japanese institutions. Whereas there are high numbers of available facilities providing primary PCI in Japan, there are no clear guidelines focusing on procedural aspect of the standardized care. Whilst updated guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction were recently published by European Society of Cardiology, the following major changes are indicated; (1) radial access and drug-eluting stent over bare metal stent were recommended as Class I indication, and (2) complete revascularization before hospital discharge (either immediate or staged) is now considered as Class IIa recommendation. Although the primary PCI is consistently recommended in recent and previous guidelines, the device lag from Europe, the frequent usage of coronary imaging modalities in Japan, and the difference in available medical therapy or mechanical support may prevent direct application of European guidelines to Japanese population. The Task Force on Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of the Japanese Association of Cardiovascular Intervention and Therapeutics (CVIT) has now proposed the expert consensus document for the management of acute myocardial infarction focusing on procedural aspect of primary PCI.

First-in-Man Trial of SiO2 Inert-Coated Bare Metal Stent System in Native Coronary Stenosis ― The AXETIS FIM Trial ―

BACKGROUND A novel bare metal stent with an SiO2coating was developed to prevent excessive neointimal hyperplasia by inertization of the metallic stent surface. The efficacy of the device was demonstrated in a preclinical model. The aim of this first-in-man trial was to assess the safety and feasibility of the new device.Methods and Results:This prospective non-randomized single-arm trial was designed to enroll 35 patients with a de novo coronary lesion. Quantitative coronary angiography and optical coherence tomography (OCT) were performed at the baseline procedure and at the 6-month follow-up. Stent implantation was performed with OCT guidance according to optimal stent implantation criteria. The trial was terminated upon the advice of the data safety monitoring board after enrolling 14 patients due to the high incidence of re-intervention. Optimal OCT implantation criteria were achieved in only 8.3% of lesions. At 6 months, angiographic in-stent late lumen loss as the primary endpoint was 0.77±0.44 mm, and binary restenosis occurred in 33.3% of lesions. At the 6-month OCT, neointimal volume obstruction was 32.8±15.6% with a neointimal thickness of 237±117 µm. At 12 months, the device-oriented composite endpoint (defined as cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization rate) was 33.3%. CONCLUSIONS In contrast with the preclinical study, the Axetis stent did not efficiently suppress neointimal hyperplasia in humans in this trial.

Left Main Coronary Artery Embolism after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Insights from Multimodal Intracoronary Imagings

Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Sapporo Higashi Tokushukai Hospital, Sapporo, Japan; Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Sapporo Higashi Tokushukai Hospital, Sapporo, Japan; Department of Anesthesiology, Sapporo Higashi Tokushukai Hospital, Sapporo, Japan; Department of Anesthesiology, Shonan Kamakura General Hospital, Kamakura, Japan; Thoraxcenter, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Shonan Kamakura General Hospital, Kamakura, Japan

Coronary computed tomography angiography for heart team decision-making in multivessel coronary artery disease

Abstract Aims Coronary computed tomography angiography (CTA) has emerged as a non-invasive diagnostic method for patients with suspected coronary artery disease, but its usefulness in patients with complex coronary artery disease remains to be investigated. The present study sought to determine the agreement between separate heart teams on treatment decision-making based on either coronary CTA or conventional angiography. Methods and results Separate heart teams composed of an interventional cardiologist, a cardiac surgeon, and a radiologist were randomized to assess the coronary artery disease with either coronary CTA or conventional angiography in patients with de novo left main or three-vessel coronary artery disease. Each heart team, blinded for the other imaging modality, quantified the anatomical complexity using the SYNTAX score and integrated clinical information using the SYNTAX Score II to provide a treatment recommendations based on mortality prediction at 4 years: coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or equipoise between CABG and PCI. The primary endpoint was the agreement between heart teams on the revascularization strategy. The secondary endpoint was the impact of fractional flow reserve derived from coronary CTA (FFRCT) on treatment decision and procedural planning. Overall, 223 patients were included. A treatment recommendation of CABG was made in 28% of the cases with coronary CTA and in 26% with conventional angiography. The agreement concerning treatment decision between coronary CTA and conventional angiography was high (Cohen’s kappa 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.74–0.91). The heart teams agreed on the coronary segments to be revascularized in 80% of the cases. FFRCT was available for 869/1108 lesions (196/223 patients). Fractional flow reserve derived from coronary CTA changed the treatment decision in 7% of the patients. Conclusion In patients with left main or three-vessel coronary artery disease, a heart team treatment decision-making based on coronary CTA showed high agreement with the decision derived from conventional coronary angiography suggesting the potential feasibility of a treatment decision-making and planning based solely on this non-invasive imaging modality and clinical information. Trial registration number NCT02813473.