Background— Distal unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) stenosis represents a technical challenge for interventional cardiologists. In this study, we compared 2-year clinical outcomes of different stenting strategies in patients with distal ULMCA stenosis treated with drug-eluting stents. Methods and Results— The survey promoted by the Italian Society of Invasive Cardiology on ULMCA stenosis was an observational study on patients with ULMCA stenosis treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. In this study, we selected patients with distal ULMCA stenosis treated with drug-eluting stents. Seven hundred seventy-three patients were eligible for this study: 456 were treated with 1 stent (group 1) and 317 with 2 stents (group 2). The primary end point of the study was the incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), defined as the occurrence of mortality, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization. During a 2-year follow-up, risk-adjusted survival free from MACE was significantly higher in patients in group 1 than in patients in group 2. The propensity-adjusted hazard ratio for the risk of 2-year MACE in patients in group 1 versus group 2 was 0.53 (95% CI, 0.37 to 0.76). The propensity-adjusted hazard ratio for the risk of 2-year cardiac mortality and myocardial infarction in patients in group 1 versus group 2 was 0.38 (95% CI, 0.17 to 0.85). Conclusions— Compared with the 2-stent technique, the 1-stent technique is associated with a better 2-year MACE-free survival. The stenting strategy is a prognostic factor that should be taken into account when deciding the optimal revascularization treatment.
We aimed to appraise the outcomes of diabetic patients with unprotected left main (ULM) disease treated with drug-eluting stents. Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation is increasingly used for ULM disease. However, there are no data on the clinical results of drug-eluting stents for ULM disease in patients with diabetes.We collected baseline and outcome data from all patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents for ULM disease at our institution since 2002. We identified three groups: insulin-requiring diabetes mellitus patients, noninsulin-requiring diabetes mellitus patients, and nondiabetes mellitus individuals. The primary end point was the rate of major adverse cardiac events, that is, cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. We also appraised stent thrombosis according to the Academic Research Consortium.A total of 185 patients were enrolled, 25/185 (14%) insulin-requiring diabetes mellitus patients, 30/185 (16%) noninsulin-requiring diabetes mellitus patients, and 130/185 (70%) nondiabetes mellitus individuals. In-hospital adverse events were overall uncommon and not significantly different across groups. After a median follow-up period of 23.1 months, major adverse cardiac events had occurred in similar rates across groups: 6/25 (24%) insulin-requiring patients with diabetes mellitus, 8/30 (27%) noninsulin-requiring patients with diabetes mellitus, and 31/128 (24%) nondiabetes mellitus individuals (P = 0.96). No case of definite or probable stent thrombosis was adjudicated. Intriguingly, possible stent thrombosis was nonsignificantly more common among insulin-requiring diabetes mellitus patients than among noninsulin-requiring diabetes mellitus patients or nondiabetes mellitus individuals [1/25 (4%) vs. 0/30 (0%) and 1/128 (0.8%), respectively, P = 0.30].Drug-eluting stents provide favorable early and long-term results in both selected patients with diabetes and nondiabetic individuals undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for ULM disease. Nonetheless, further randomized data are eagerly awaited to definitely confirm or disprove these findings.
We aimed to appraise the predictive accuracy of a novel and user-friendly risk score, the ACEF (age, creatinine, ejection fraction), in patients undergoing PCI for coronary bifurcations.A multicentre, retrospective study was conducted enrolling consecutive patients undergoing bifurcation PCI between January 2002 and December 2006 in 22 Italian centres. Patients with complete data to enable computation of the ACEF score were divided into three groups according to tertiles of ACEF score. The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. The discrimination of the ACEF score as a continuous variable was also appraised with area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver-operating characteristic. A total of 3,535 patients were included: 1,119 in the lowest tertile of ACEF score, 1,190 in the mid tertile, and 1,153 in the highest tertile. Increased ACEF score was associated with significantly different rates of 30-day mortality (0.1% in the lowest tertile vs. 0.5% in the mid tertile and 3.0% in the highest tertile, p<0.001), with similar differences in myocardial infarction (0.3% vs. 0.7% and 1.8%, p<0.001) and major adverse cardiac events (MACE, 0.5% vs. 1.2% and 4.3%, p<0.001). After an average follow-up of 24.4±15.1 months, increased ACEF score was still associated with a higher rate of all-cause death (1.3% vs. 2.4% and 11.0%, p<0.001), cardiac death (0.9% vs. 1.4% and 7.2%, p<0.001), myocardial infarction (3.4% vs. 2.7% and 5.7%, p<0.001), MACE (13.6% vs. 15.9% and 22.3%, p<0.001), and stent thrombosis (2.3% vs. 1.8% and 5.0%, p<0.001). Discrimination of ACEF score was satisfactory for 30-day mortality (AUC=0.82 [0.77-0.87], p<0.001), 30-day MACE (AUC=0.73 [0.67-0.78], p<0.001), long-term mortality (AUC=0.77 [0.74-0.81], p<0.001), and moderate for long-term MACE (AUC=0.60 [0.57-0.62], p<0.001).The simple and extremely user-friendly ACEF score can accurately identify patients undergoing PCI for coronary bifurcation lesions at high risk of early fatal or non-fatal complications, as well as long-term fatality.
Abstract Background The PARIS risk score (PARIS‐rs) and percutaneous coronary intervention complexity (PCI‐c) predict clinical and procedural residual ischemic risk following PCI. Their accuracy in patients undergoing unprotected left main (ULM) or bifurcation PCI has not been assessed. Methods The predictive performances of the PARIS‐rs (categorized as low, intermediate, and high) and PCI‐c (according to guideline‐endorsed criteria) were evaluated in 3,002 patients undergoing ULM/bifurcation PCI with very thin strut stents. Results After 16 (12–22) months, increasing PARIS‐rs (8.8% vs. 14.1% vs. 27.4%, p < .001) and PCI‐c (15.2% vs. 11%, p = .025) were associated with higher rates of major adverse cardiac events ([MACE], a composite of death, myocardial infarction [MI], and target vessel revascularization), driven by MI/death for PARIS‐rs and target lesion revascularization/stent thrombosis for PCI‐c (area under the curves for MACE: PARIS‐rs 0.60 vs. PCI‐c 0.52, p ‐for‐difference < .001). PCI‐c accuracy for MACE was higher in low‐clinical‐risk patients; while PARIS‐rs was more accurate in low‐procedural‐risk patients. ≥12‐month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) was associated with a lower MACE rate in high PARIS‐rs patients, (adjusted‐hazard ratio 0.42 [95% CI: 0.22–0.83], p = .012), with no benefit in low to intermediate PARIS‐rs patients. No incremental benefit with longer DAPT was observed in complex PCI. Conclusions In the setting of ULM/bifurcation PCI, the residual ischemic risk is better predicted by a clinical risk estimator than by PCI complexity, which rather appears to reflect stent/procedure‐related events. Careful procedural risk estimation is warranted in patients at low clinical risk, where PCI complexity may substantially contribute to the overall residual ischemic risk.
Background: Coronary chronic total occlusions (CTO) remain a challenging lesion subset for interventional cardiologists. The retrograde approach is a novel but still incompletely described technique. We report our 5‐year‐long experience in retrograde percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for CTOs. Methods: We abstracted patient and procedural data on all cases with attempted retrograde approach by means of a native septal or epicardial collateral pathway. End‐points were wiring, angiographic and procedural success, plus long‐term major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Results: The retrograde approach was used in 18 patients, including 11 CTOs of right coronary artery (RCA), 3 of left circumflex (LCX), and 4 of left anterior descending (LAD), with procedural success in 12 (67%). Conversely, two cases of wiring failures, three angiographic failures despite successful retrograde wiring, and one postprocedural myocardial infarction in an otherwise angiographically successful procedure were found. Causes of wiring failure were inability to retrogradely cross the distal (1) or the proximal stump (1) with the wire, while angiographic failures were due to interruption of the procedure due to rupture of a minor septal collateral branch during attempts at advancing the noninflated balloon (1) or persistent inability to deliver the balloon through the chosen collateral (2). Follow‐up at a mean of 15 months showed MACE had occurred in five (28%) subjects. Conclusions: The retrograde approach appears feasible and safe in the percutaneous management of coronary occlusions, and its application can be envisioned as a promising alternative in selected patients in whom antegrade approaches fail or are unsafe.
