Zhi-Zhong Liu

Randomized Comparison of FFR-Guided and Angiography-Guided Provisional Stenting of True Coronary Bifurcation Lesions: The DKCRUSH-VI Trial (Double Kissing Crush Versus Provisional Stenting Technique for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcation Lesions VI).

OBJECTIVES This study sought to compare the outcomes of fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided and angiography (Angio)-guided provisional side-branch (SB) stenting for true coronary bifurcation lesions. BACKGROUND Angio-guided provisional SB stenting after stenting of the main vessel provides favorable outcomes for the majority of coronary bifurcation lesions. Whether an FFR-guided provisional stenting approach is superior has not been studied. METHODS A total of 320 patients with single Medina 1,1,1 and 0,1,1 coronary bifurcation lesions undergoing stenting with a provisional SB approach were randomly assigned 1:1 to Angio-guided and FFR-guided groups. SB stenting was performed for Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction flow grade<3, ostial SB stenosis>70%, or greater than type A dissection after main vessel stenting in the Angio-guided group and for SB-FFR<0.80 in the FFR-guided group. The primary endpoint was the 1-year composite rate of major adverse cardiac events (cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and clinically driven target vessel revascularization). RESULTS Comparing the Angio-guided and FFR-guided groups, treatment of the SB (balloon or stenting) was performed in 63.1% and 56.3% of lesions respectively (p=0.07); stenting of the SB was attempted in 38.1% and 25.9%, respectively (p=0.01); and, when attempted, stenting was successful in 83.6% and 73.3% of SBs, respectively (p=0.01). The 1-year composite major adverse cardiac event rate was 18.1% in both groups (hazard ratio: 0.91, 95% confidence interval: 0.48 to 1.88; p=1.00). The 1-year target vessel revascularization and stent thrombosis rates were 6.9% and 5.6% (p=0.82) and 1.3% and 0.6% (p=0.56) in the Angio-guided and FFR-guided groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS In this multicenter, randomized trial, angiographic and FFR guidance of provisional SB stenting of true coronary bifurcation lesions provided similar 1-year clinical outcomes. (Randomized Study on DK Crush Technique Versus Provisional Stenting Technique for Coronary Artery Bifurcation Lesions; ChiCTR-TRC-07000015).

Intravascular Ultrasound-guided Systematic Two-stent Techniques for Coronary Bifurcation Lesions and Reduced Late Stent Thrombosis

The effects of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS)‐guided complex approaches using drug‐eluting stents (DES) for coronary bifurcation lesions on clinical outcomes has not yet been studied in detail.

Five-year clinical follow-up of unprotected left main bifurcation lesion stenting: one-stent versus two-stent techniques versus double-kissing crush technique

AIMS The present study aimed to compare the long-term (five-year) safety and efficacy between the one-stent, two-stent and double-kissing (DK) crush strategies, utilising drug-eluting stents, for unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) bifurcation lesions. METHODS AND RESULTS Between March 2004 and April 2007, 633 consecutive patients with ULMCA bifurcation lesions (232 in the one-stent group and 401 in the two-stent group) were prospectively enrolled. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE), a composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and target vessel revascularisation (TVR), at five-year follow-up. Patients in the the two-stent group were classified as DK crush (n=155) and other two-stent techniques (culotte, T-stenting, kissing stenting and classical crush, n=246). Forty-seven (16.8%) patients in the one-stent group crossed over to the two-stent group. The one-stent group was associated with an increased incidence of MI compared to the two-stent approach (10.5% vs. 5.5%, p=0.025). The crude rate of MACE at five years was 28.0% in the one-stent group and 28.4% in the two-stent group (p=0.927). DK crush was associated with a significantly decreased five-year MACE compared to the other two-stent approaches or the one-stent approach (DK crush: 14.8% vs. other two-stent approaches: 37.0%, one-stent approach: 28.0%, p<0.001). The main benefit of DK crush primarily appeared to be secondary to a reduction in TVR (7.7% vs. 30.5% vs. 18.1%, p<0.001). By Cox regression analyses, the non-DK crush two-stent technique, a high SYNTAX Score (≥33) or New Risk Stratification (NERS) score (>20), and incomplete revascularisation were shown to be independent predictors of MACE at five-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS With distal left main true bifurcations, the two-stent technique (excluding DK crush) is an independent predictor of long-term MACE. DK crush is associated with more favourable long-term clinical outcomes. Confirmation of these findings is required from randomised controlled trials.

Diagnostic accuracy of quantitative angiographic and intravascular ultrasound parameters predicting the functional significance of single de novo lesions.

OBJECTIVES The current study aimed at determining the best cutoff value of angiographic and intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) parameters for defining fractional flow reserve (FFR) <0.8 in patients with single coronary artery lesion. BACKGROUND The correlation between angiographic or IVUS variables and FFR in patients with single coronary artery lesions has not been studied yet. METHODS Quantitative coronary analysis and IVUS and FFR measurements were used in 323 patients with a single lesion. The best angiographic and IVUS cutoff values and their predictive value for FFR<0.8 were compared using area under the receiver-operator characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS FFR<0.8 was in 54.2%. Minimal lumen area (MLA), plaque burden (PB), lesion length (LL) and lesion at left anterior descending artery (LAD) were four predictors of FFR<0.8. LL had less value in predicting FFR<0.8. The cutoff values of PB and MLA for FFR<0.8 were 72.7% and 2.97 mm(2). MLA and PB had similar high diagnostic value for vessel size ≥ 3 mm (cutoff values: 3.02 mm(2) and 80.7%), proximal LAD lesion (cutoff values: 3.04 mm(2) and 76.5%) and unstable angina (2.82 mm(2) and 71.9%). Combination of MLA (2.82 mm(2)) and PB (80.6%) had increased diagnostic value for distal LAD lesion. Only PB (71%) had higher diagnostic value for diabetic patients. MLA and PB could not predict FFR<0.8 for vessel size<3mm, and non-LAD lesion. CONCLUSION Best cutoff value of MLA and PB for FFR<0.8 in patients with a single lesion is patient-, vessel size- and lesion location-oriented. PB has strengthened diagnostic accuracy for diabetic patients.

Crush stenting with paclitaxel-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stents for the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions.

Two hundred forty-six patients with 252 bifurcation lesions were enrolled into a prospective, nonrandomized study to use paclitaxel-eluting or sirolimus-eluting stent for crush stenting in the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions. Compared with the sirolimus-eluting stent group, the paclitaxel-eluting stent group had significantly higher mean late lumen and binary angiographic restenosis rates. Sirolimus-eluting stent versus paclitaxel-eluting stent recipients had significantly lower in-segment restenosis in the entire main vessel (15.7% vs 3.1%, P = .004), and simultaneous side branch and main vessel restenoses were solely detected in the paclitaxel-eluting stent group (11.9% vs 0%, P = .03). Target-lesion vessel revascularization and cumulative major adverse cardiac events rates were significantly higher in the paclitaxel-eluting versus the sirolimus-eluting stent group (17.99% vs 8.41%, P = .01; 19.4 vs 9.3%, P = .01; 23.6 vs 11.2%, P = .03). In this study with crush stenting, use of sirolimus-eluting stent, compared with paclitaxel-eluting stent, yielded significantly lower late lumen loss, restenosis, and revascularization rates, with comparable safety by 8-month follow-up.

Distal Left Main Coronary Bifurcation Lesions Predict Worse Outcome in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Implantation of Drug-Eluting Stents: Results from the Drug-Eluting Stent for the Treatment of Left Main Disease (DISTAL) Study

Objectives: We investigated the clinical outcome of stenting of unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA). Methods: We studied 164 patients with nonbifurcated LMCA lesions (group A) and 96 patients with distal bifurcated lesions (group B). Results: Clinical follow-up was available in 100%. Angiographic follow-up was 87.3% in group A and 86% in group B (p = 0.922). There were significant differences in major adverse cardiac events at 1 (p = 0.014) and 2 years (p = 0.002) between group B (19.8%, 25.0%) and group A (9.1%, 10.4%), mainly due to increased target-vessel revascularization (16.7, 21.9% in group B vs. 6.1, 7.3% in group A, p = 0.006 and 0.001, respectively). The double-stent technique was associated with worse outcomes at 1 year in group B compared to group A. Bifurcation lesions (HR 3.42, 95% CI 1.34–5.61, p = 0.001), diabetes (HR 2.68, 95% CI 2.01–12.11, p = 0.015), three-vessel disease (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.27–0.96, p = 0.001), incomplete revascularization (HR 0.15, 95% CI 0.11–0.35, p = 0.001) and stent diameter (HR 5.05, 95% CI 2.71–10.01, p = 0.03) were the independent factors of major adverse cardiac events in the whole patient cohort. Conclusion: Stenting unprotected distal bifurcated LMCA was associated with unfavorable results when compared to stenting other LMCA lesions.

The acute changes of fractional flow reserve in DK (double kissing), crush, and 1-stent technique for true bifurcation lesions.

BACKGROUND While many studies confirmed the importance of fractional flow reserve (FFR) in guiding complex percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), data regarding the significance of FFR for bifurcation lesions are still lacking. METHODS Between October 2008 and October 2009, 51 patients with true bifurcation lesions were consecutively enrolled and randomized into double kissing (DK) crush (n = 25), and provisional 1-stent (n = 26) groups. FFR measurements at baseline and hyperemia were measured at pre-PCI, post-PCI, and at 8-month follow-up. RESULTS Clinical follow-ups were available in 100% of patients while only 33% of patients underwent angiographic follow-up. Baseline clinical and angiographic characteristics were matched between the 2 groups. Pre-PCI FFR of the main branch (MB) in the DK group was 0.76 +/- 0.15, which was significantly lower than in the provisional 1-stent group (0.83 +/- 0.10, P = 0.029). This difference disappeared after the PCI procedure (0.92 +/- 0.04 vs. 0.92 +/- 0.05, P = 0.58). There were no significant differences in terms of baseline, angiographic, procedural indexes, and FFR of side branch (SB) between the 2 treatment arms. However, immediately after PCI, the patient with DK crush had higher FFR in the SB as compared to the provisional 1-stent group (0.94 +/- 0.03 vs. 0.90 +/- 0.08, P = 0.028, respectively) and also they had lower diameter stenosis (8.59 +/- 6.41% vs. 15.62 +/- 11.69%, P = 0.015, respectively). CONCLUSION In the acute phase, immediately after PCI for bifurcation lesion, DK crush stenting was associated with higher FFR and lower residual diameter stenosis in the SB, as compared with the provisional 1-stent group.

Comparison of long-term clinical outcome between patients with chronic versus acute type B aortic dissection treated by implantation of a stent graft: a single-center report.

Background Stent grafting for treatment of type B aortic dissection has been extensively used. However, the difference in the long-term clinical outcome between patients with chronic versus acute type B aortic dissection remains unknown. This study aimed to analyze the difference in long-term clinical outcome after endovascular repair for patients with chronic (≥2 weeks) versus acute (<2 weeks) type B aortic dissection. Methods Between May 2000 and June 2011, a total of 174 patients with type B aortic dissection (56 chronic, 118 acute) treated by endovascular repair were studied prospectively. Follow-up three-dimensional computed tomography scanning and aortoangiography were scheduled at 3–6 months after the index procedure. Propensity score matching was used to compare the difference in the endpoint between the two groups. Results The procedure-related event rate was 18.6% in the acute group and 5.4% in the chronic group (P = 0.021), but this difference became nonsignificant after propensity score matching. At the end of follow-up (mean 2.49 years), overall and aorta-related mortality was 11.0% and 7.6%, respectively, in the acute group, and was not significantly different from that in the chronic group (3.6% and 3.6%, P = 0.148 and P = 0.506, respectively). Both false and true lumina showed significant remodeling over time, with >93% complete false-lumen thrombosis. Untreated tear and type I endoleak were predictors of clinical events during follow-up. Conclusion Comparable long-term clinical results were achieved in patients with chronic or acute type B aortic dissection after implantation of a stent graft.

Acute Effects of Nicardipine and Esmolol on The Cardiac Cycle, Intracardiac Hemodynamic and Endothelial Shear Stress in Patients With Unstable Angina Pectoris and Moderate Coronary Stenosis: Results From Single Center, Randomized Study

OBJECTIVE This study aimed to compare the acute effects of nicardipine and esmolol on hemodynamic and endothelial shear stress (ESS) in patients with unstable angina (UA) and moderate coronary stenosis (MCS). BACKGROUND Nicardipine and esmolol exhibit cardioprotection via different mechanisms. However, their acute effects on hemodynamic and ESS are still unknown. METHODS One-hundred sixteen patients with UA and MSC were randomly divided into nicardipine (n = 59) and esmolol (n = 57) groups. Drugs were injected as a bolus followed by continuous infusion to achieve the steady states defined as the mean blood pressure (MBP) reduced by ≥ 10% or a heart-rate change by ≥ 15 bpm, lasting for at least 10 min. The aortic pressure (AP), EKG, blood velocity, right atrial pressure, distal coronary pressure (DCP), systolic time (ST), isovolumetric diastolic time (IVDT), speed filling time (SFT), and ESS were simultaneously calculated at baseline and steady states. RESULTS Both drugs significantly reduced blood pressure and rate-pressure load. Infusion of nicardipine was associated with negative remodeling of the distal segment (P= 0.005). Esmolol, rather than nicardipine, increased minimal lumen diameter (P= 0.040), prolonged SFT (0.34 ± 0.03 s vs. 0.41 ± 0.03 s, P < 0.001), reduced DCP (P < 0.001) and increased blood velocity (33.65 ± 1.07 cm/s vs. 43.36 ± 1.25 cm/s, P < 0.001) at SFT stages, with increased blood-flow (P < 0.001). Both drugs increased downstream ESS. Esmolol significantly reversed abnormally increased ESS (P < 0.001) and increased upstream ESS compared with nicardipine (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION Beyond a similar reduction of AP, patients with UA and MCS could benefit more from the reduction of heart rate induced by esmolol (ChiCTR-TRC-10000964).

Crush stenting with drug-eluting stents: relevance of coronary bifurcation lesion location on angiographic and clinical outcomes.

Data on the relevance of the location of coronary bifurcation lesions treated by crush stenting with outcomes were limited.