Reply Alfonso, Fernando; Pérez Vizcayno, María José; Cárdenas, Alberto ...
Journal of the American College of Cardiology,
01/2016, Letnik:
67, Številka:
3
Journal Article
ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in very young patients is an uncommon entity but with significant clinical meaning for the patient. These individuals may have different risk profiles and ...prognosis. Few reports have described epidemiology, clinical features, and long-term outcomes of these patients in the era of percutaneous coronary intervention, particularly of those ≤35.
This observational study evaluates the clinical characteristics of patients <35 years with STEMI between January 2004 and September 2016 in 3 different centers. We gathered data and follow-up from the prospective database of the interventional cardiology department, medical history, and phone interviews.
Over a total of 3,883 STEMI, we retrieved 61 patients ≤35. They were mainly male (88%), smokers (80%), and overweight (67%). Twenty-six percent were drug consumers. Only 2 patients (3%) were free of conventional risk factors. In-hospital mortality was 5% (3 deaths). They were followed-up for 5.9 ± 4.2 years with a total survival of 96.6% (2 deaths). Major adverse cardiovascular events incidence at the end of follow-up was only 17.2% (10 patients).
STEMI in the young is a rare condition. These patients have several modifiable predisposing factors, a low clinical risk profile, and excellent short- and long-term prognosis with state-of-the-art treatment.
This study sought to assess the value of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) in patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR).
Currently both drug-eluting stents (DES) and drug-eluting balloons (DEB) ...are recommended in patients with ISR. However, the value of BVS in this setting remains unclear.
RIBS VI (Restenosis Intra-stent: drug-eluting Balloon vs everolimus-eluting Stent) was a prospective multicenter study (19 Spanish sites) that included 141 patients treated with BVS for either bare-metal stent (BMS) ISR or DES-ISR. Late angiography was scheduled at 6 to 9 months. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were similar to those used in the RIBS IV (patients with DES-ISR) and RIBS V (patients with BMS-ISR) trials, where DEB (n = 249) was compared with everolimus (EES)-DES (n = 249). Results of BVS in RIBS VI were compared with those obtained with DEB and EES in the RIBS IV and V trials.
On late angiography (n = 134; 95% of eligible) the in-segment minimal lumen diameter (primary endpoint) was 1.87 ± 0.5 mm, late lumen loss was 0.23 ± 0.4 mm, and restenosis rate was 11%. At 1-year follow-up (100% of patients) no patient died, 4 (2.8%) experienced a myocardial infarction, and 16 (11.3%) required target lesion revascularization. One patient (0.7%) who discontinued antiplatelet therapy experienced definitive BVS thrombosis. Freedom from cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization was 86%. The minimal lumen diameter at follow-up after BVS was similar to that obtained with DEB (1.88 ± 0.6 mm; p = NS) but smaller than that achieved after EES (2.16 ± 0.7 mm; p < 0.001). Likewise, target lesion revascularization rates after BVS were similar to those seen with DEB (10.4%) but higher than with EES (3.2%; p < 0.001). Results remained unchanged after adjusting for potential confounders in baseline characteristics.
This study suggests the safety and efficacy of BVS in patients with ISR. In this challenging anatomic scenario BVS obtained late angiographic and clinical results similar to DEB but inferior to EES. (Restenosis Intrastent: Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffolds Treatment RIBS VI; NCT02672878).
La neoateroesclerosis es una de las causas de la reestenosis en el stent (RS). Nuestro objetivo es evaluar la influencia de la neoateroesclerosis en el pronóstico y la respuesta al tratamiento de los ...pacientes con RS.
Se trata de un análisis conjunto de los subestudios de tomografía de coherencia óptica (OCT) de los RIBS IV y V, 2 ensayos clínicos aleatorizados y multicéntricos que comparan el tratamiento con un balón recubierto con paclitaxel frente al stent liberador de everolimus en pacientes con RS. La evaluación con OCT se realizó basalmente y a los 6-9 meses. La neoateroesclerosis se definió en la OCT basal como una neoíntima con contenido calcificado o lipídico. Se evaluaron los resultados angiográficos y por OCT a los 6-9 meses y la aparición de eventos adversos cardiovasculares mayores a los 3 años de seguimiento en pacientes con y sin neoateroesclerosis tratados con balón recubierto con paclitaxel o stent liberador de everolimus.
Se estudió mediante OCT a 64 pacientes en el momento del procedimiento. Se documentó neoateroesclerosis en 23 lesiones (36%). El seguimiento angiográfico a los 6-9 meses no mostró diferencias entre los pacientes con y sin neoateroesclerosis en reestenosis (5 24% frente a 6 15%; p=0,49), diámetro luminal mínimo (1,79±0,7 frente a 1,94±0,6 mm; p=0,41) o pérdida tardía (0,33±0,7 frente a 0,15±0,5; p=0,34). El seguimiento con OCT confirmó la ausencia de diferencias en los parámetros cuantitativos y las características del tejido de recubrimiento entre los 2 grupos. A los 3 años de seguimiento, la incidencia de eventos fue de 3 (13%) frente a 5 (12%) en los grupos con y sin neoateroesclerosis respectivamente (HR=0,94; IC95%, 0,22-3,93; p=0,93).
En este estudio con una pequeña muestra de pacientes aleatorizados a tratamiento con balón recubierto con paclitaxel o stent liberador de everolimus por RS, no parece que la presencia de neoateroesclerosis influya en los resultados agudo y a largo plazo.
Neoatherosclerosis is one of the causes of in-stent restenosis (ISR). Our objective was to evaluate the influence of neoatherosclerosis on prognosis and treatment response in patients with ISR.
This is a pooled analysis of the optical coherence tomography (OCT)-substudies of 2 multicenter, randomized clinical trials, RIBS IV and V, comparing treatment with paclitaxel-coated balloon vs everolimus-eluting stent in patients with ISR. OCT evaluation was performed at baseline and at 6 to 9 months. Neoatherosclerosis was defined in baseline OCT as neointima with calcified or lipid content. We evaluated the angiographic and OCT results at 6 to 9 months and the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events at 3 years of follow-up in patients with and without neoatherosclerosis treated with paclitaxel-coated balloon or everolimus-eluting stents.
Sixty-four patients underwent OCT at the time of the index procedure. Neoatherosclerosis was documented in 23 (36%) lesions. Angiographic follow-up at 6 to 9 months showed no differences in restenosis 5 (24%) vs 6 (15%) P=.49, minimum lumen diameter (1.79±0.7 vs 1.94±0.6mm; P=.41) or late loss (0.33±0.7 vs 0.15±0.5; P=.34) in patients with and without neoatherosclerosis, respectively. Follow-up OCT confirmed the absence of differences in quantitative parameters and the characteristics of tissue coverage between the 2 groups. At 3 years of follow-up, the major adverse cardiovascular events rate was 3 (13%) vs 5 (12%) in the neoatherosclerosis and nonneoatherosclerosis groups (HR, 0.94; 95%CI, 0.22-3.93; P=.93).
In this limited study population, OCT-defined neoatherosclerosis did not seem to influence acute and long-term outcomes in patients randomized to paclitaxel-coated balloon or everolimus-eluting stents for ISR.
Abstract Background Treatment of patients with drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a major challenge. Objectives This study evaluated the comparative efficacy of drug-eluting ...balloons (DEB) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES) in patients presenting with DES-ISR. Methods The study design of this multicenter randomized clinical trial assumed superiority of EES for the primary endpoint, in-segment minimal lumen diameter at the 6- to 9-month angiographic follow-up. Results A total of 309 patients with DES-ISR from 23 Spanish university hospitals were randomly allocated to DEB (n = 154) or EES (n = 155). At late angiography (median 247 days; 90% of eligible patients), patients in the EES arm had a significantly larger minimal lumen diameter (2.03 ± 0.7 mm vs. 1.80 ± 0.6 mm; p < 0.01) (absolute mean difference: 0.23 mm; 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.38), net lumen gain (1.28 ± 0.7 mm vs. 1.01 ± 0.7 mm; p < 0.01), and lower percent diameter stenosis (23 ± 22% vs. 30 ± 22%; p < 0.01) and binary restenosis rate (11% vs. 19%; p = 0.06), compared with patients in the DEB arm. Consistent results were observed in the in-lesion analysis. At the 1-year clinical follow-up (100% of patients), the main clinical outcome measure (composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization) was significantly reduced in the EES arm (10% vs. 18%; p = 0.04; hazard ratio: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.98), mainly driven by a lower need for target vessel revascularization (8% vs. 16%; p = 0.035). Conclusions In patients with DES-ISR, EES provided superior long-term clinical and angiographic results compared with DEB. (Restenosis Intra-Stent of Drug-Eluting Stents: Drug-Eluting Balloon vs Everolimus-Eluting Stent RIBS IV; NCT01239940 )
Introduction and objectives: The safety of physiology-based revascularization in patients with diabetes mellitus has been scarcely investigated. Our objective was to determine the safety of deferring ...revascularization based on the fractional flow reserve (FFR) or the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) in diabetic patients.
Methods: Single-center, retrospective analysis of patients with intermediate coronary stenoses in whom revascularization was deferred based on FFR > 0.80 or iFR > 0.89 values. The long-term rate of major adverse cardiovascular events, a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization (TVR), was assessed in diabetic and non-diabetic patients at the follow-up. The rate of TVR based on the type of physiological index used to defer the lesion was also evaluated.
Results: We evaluated 164 diabetic (214 vessels) and 280 non-diabetic patients (379 vessels). No significant differences in the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events was seen between diabetic and non-diabetic patients (20.1% vs 13.2%; P = .245) at a median follow-up of 43 months. All-cause mortality and cardiac death were not statistically different between both groups in the adjusted analysis (P > .05). A trend towards a higher rate of myocardial infarction was seen in diabetic patients (6.7% vs 2.9%; P = .063). However, the rate of target vessel myocardial infarction was similar in both groups (P = .874). Overall, TVR was similar in diabetics and non-diabetics (4.7% vs 4.2%; P = .814); however, when analyzed based on the physiological index, numerically, diabetics had a higher rate of TVR when the FFR was used in the decision-making process compared to when the iFR was used (6.4% vs 0.0%; P = .064).
Conclusions: Deferring the revascularization of intermediate stenoses in patients with DM based on the FFR or the iFR is safe regarding the risk of TVR or target vessel myocardial infarction, with a rate of events at the long-term follow-up similar to that seen in non-diabetic patients.
Introducción y objetivos: La seguridad de la revascularización fisiológica en pacientes diabéticos ha sido poco investigada. El objetivo fue determinar la seguridad de diferir la revascularización basándose en la reserva fraccional de flujo (FFR) o en el índice instantáneo libre de ondas (iFR) en pacientes con diabetes mellitus.
Métodos: Análisis retrospectivo, unicéntrico, de pacientes con estenosis coronarias intermedias en quienes se había diferido la revascularización en función de unos valores de FFR > 0,80 o de iFR > 0,89. Se analizó la incidencia a largo plazo de eventos cardiovasculares adversos mayores, una combinación de muerte por cualquier causa, infarto miocárdico y revascularización del vaso diana (RVD) en pacientes con y sin diabetes. También se evaluó la incidencia de RVD según el tipo de índice fisiológico utilizado para diferir la revascularización.
Resultados: Se evaluaron 164 pacientes diabéticos (214 vasos) y 280 pacientes no diabéticos (379 vasos), con una mediana de seguimiento de 43 meses. No se observaron diferencias significativas en los eventos cardiovasculares adversos mayores entre pacientes con y sin diabetes mellitus (20,1 frente a 13,2%; p = 0,245). La mortalidad por cualquier causa y de causa cardiaca no fue estadísticamente diferente entre ambos grupos en el análisis ajustado (p > 0,05). Se observó una tendencia a una mayor incidencia de infarto de miocardio en los pacientes con diabetes mellitus (6,7 frente a 2,9%; p = 0,063), pero el infarto relacionado con el vaso diana fue similar en ambos grupos (p = 0,906). En general, la RVD fue similar en diabéticos y no diabéticos (4,7 frente a 4,2%; p = 0,787); sin embargo, cuando se analizó según el índice fisiológico, los diabéticos tuvieron una mayor tasa numérica de RVD cuando se utilizó la FFR en la toma de decisiones en comparación con el iFR (6,4 frente a 0,0%; p = 0,064).
Conclusiones: Diferir la revascularización de estenosis intermedias en pacientes con diabetes mellitus según la FFR o el iFR es seguro en términos de RVD e infarto relacionado con el vaso diana, con una tasa de eventos en el seguimiento a largo plazo similar a la observada en pacientes sin diabetes mellitus.
Treatment of patients with drug-eluting stent (DES) in-stent restenosis (ISR) is particularly challenging. We sought to compare results of drug-eluting balloons in patients with DES-ISR with those in ...patients with bare-metal stent (BMS) ISR. A pooled analysis of the Restenosis Intra-Stent: Drug-Eluting Balloon versus Everolimus-Eluting Stent IV and V randomized trials was performed. Both trials had identical inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results of drug-eluting balloons in 95 patients with BMS-ISR and 154 patients with DES-ISR were compared. Patients with DES-ISR were more frequently diabetics, presented more often as an acute coronary syndrome and had more severe lesions and more frequently a focal pattern, including edge-ISR. Late angiographic findings (92% of eligible patients), including minimal lumen diameter (1.80 ± 0.6 vs 2.01 ± 0.6 mm, p = 0.001; absolute mean difference 0.21 mm; 95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.38; p = 0.014) and restenosis rate (19% vs 9.5%, p <0.05) were poorer in DES-ISR. Results were consistent across 10 prespecified subgroups. Moreover, on multiple linear regression analysis, minimal lumen diameter at follow-up remained significantly smaller in patients with DES-ISR after adjusting for potential confounders ( adjusted absolute mean difference 0.17 mm; 95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.41; p = 0.019). Finally, at 1-year clinical follow-up (100% of patients), rates of target vessel revascularization (16% vs 6%, p = 0.02) and of the main combined clinical end point (18% vs 8%, p = 0.03) were significantly higher in patients treated for DES-ISR. In conclusion, this study confirms the efficacy of DEB for patients with ISR. However, the long-term clinical and angiographic results of DEB are poorer in patients with DES-ISR than in those with BMS-ISR. ( ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01239953 & NCT01239940 ).
Background
Treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) remains a significant challenge. Current options include repeat stenting or drug-coated balloons. However, there is a paucity of data regarding ...vascular healing after these strategies. We, aimed to compare optical coherence tomography (OCT)-based vessel healing after treatment with paclitaxel-coated balloons (PCB) or everolimus-eluting stents (EES).
Methods
An OCT substudy (baseline and 6–9 months) of patients from RIBS IV and RIBS V, two prospective multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trials comparing PCB vs. EES in patients with ISR was performed.
Results
Sixty-four patients were included (30 PCB and 34 EES). There were no differences in the baseline or angiographic characteristics between groups. Both groups had the same proportion of drug-eluting and bare-metal stent (BMS) ISR. Baseline OCT analysis did not show differences in the qualitative characteristics of the ISR nor the restenotic tissue burden. Follow-up OCT showed a larger mean lumen area in the EES group (6.03 ± 1.5 vs. 5.24 ± 1.3 mm
2
;
P
= 0.043) but no difference in angiographic restenosis (
P
= 0.66). Percentage tissue coverage was higher with PCB vs. EES (26 ± 13 vs. 19 ± 11%;
P
= 0.031). EES-treated ISR more frequently had uncovered struts at follow-up 21 (72%) vs. 12 (44%);
P
= 0.034. Tissue covering struts more frequently had a high backscatter structure after PCB 21 (78%) vs. 16 (55%);
P
= 0.07.
Conclusions
Compared with EES, ISR treated with PCB demonstrated more strut coverage with mainly high backscattering tissue. Larger OCT-defined neointimal proliferation in PCB-treated ISR did not translate into higher angiographic restenosis rates.
PDF
