The content of these European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Guidelines has been published for personal and educational use only. No commercial use is authorized. No part of the ESC Guidelines may be translated or reproduced in any form without written permission from the ESC. Permission can be obtained upon submission of a written request to Oxford University Press, the publisher of the European Heart Journal and the party authorized to handle such permissions on behalf of the ESC (journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org). Disclaimer. The ESC Guidelines represent the views of the ESC and were produced after careful consideration of the scientific and medical knowledge and the evidence available at the time of their publication. The ESC is not responsible in the event of any contradiction, discrepancy and/or ambiguity between the ESC Guidelines and any other official recommendations or guidelines issued by the relevant public health authorities, in particular in relation to good use of healthcare or therapeutic strategies. Health professionals are encouraged to take the ESC Guidelines fully into account when exercising their clinical judgment, as well as in the determination and the implementation of preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic medical strategies; however, the ESC Guidelines do not override, in any way whatsoever, the individual responsibility of health professionals to make appropriate and accurate decisions in consideration of each patient's health condition and in consultation with that patient and, where appropriate and/or necessary, the patient's caregiver. Nor do the ESC Guidelines exempt health professionals from taking into full and careful consideration the relevant official updated recommendations or guidelines issued by the competent public health authorities, in order to manage each patient's case in light of the scientifically accepted data pursuant to their respective ethical and professional obligations. It is also the health professional's responsibility to verify the applicable rules and regulations relating to drugs and medical devices at the time of prescription.

No abstract

Рабочая группа по реваскуляризации миокарда Европейского общества кардиологов (esc) и Европейской ассоциации кардиоторакальных хирургов (eActs) Разработаны с участием Европейской ассоциации по чрескожным сердечно-сосудистым вмешательствам (eApcI) Авторы/члены Рабочей группы: stephan Windecker* (Председатель esc) (Швейцария), philippe Kolh* (Председатель eActs) (Бельгия), Fernando Alfonso (Испания), Jean-philippe collet (Франция), Jochen cremer (Германия), Volkmar Falk (Швейцария), Gerasimos Filippatos (Греция), christian Hamm (Германия), stuart J. Head (Нидерланды), peter Jüni (Швейцария), A. pieter Kappetein (Нидерланды), Adnan Kastrati (Германия), Juhani Knuuti (Финляндия), Ulf Landmesser (Швейцария), Günther Laufer (Австрия), Franz-Josef Neumann (Германия), Dimitrios J. Richter (Греция), patrick schauerte (Германия), Miguel sousa Uva (Португалия), Giulio G. stefanini (Швейцария), David paul taggart (Соединённое Королевство), Lucia torracca (Италия), Marco Valgimigli (Италия), William Wijns (Бельгия), and Adam Witkowski (Польша). В подготовке данных рекомендаций приняли участие следующие подразделе-ния esc: Ассоциации esc: Ассоциация специалистов по острой сердечно-сосудистой помощи (Acute cardiovascular care Association; AccA), Европейская ассоциа-ция специалистов по методам визуализации сердечно-сосудистой системы (european Association of cardiovascular Imaging; eAcVI), Европейская ассоциа-ция специалистов по сердечно-сосудистой профилактике и реабилитации (european Association for cardiovascular prevention & Rehabilitation; eAcpR), Европейская ассоциация аритмологов (european Heart Rhythm Association; eHRA), Ассоциация специалистов по сердечной недостаточности (Heart Failure Association; HFA). КомитетРабочие группы esc: Сердечно-сосудистая клеточная электрофизиология, Магнитная резонансная томография сердечно-сосудистой системы, Сер-дечно-сосудистая фармакология и медикаментозная терапия, Сердечно-сосудистая хирургия, Коронарная патофизиология и микроциркуляция, Ядер-ная кардиология и КТ сердца, Периферическая циркуляция, Тромбоз, Коро-нарная болезнь сердца.Советы esc: Кардиологическая практика, Первичная сердечно-сосудистая помощь, Уход за сердечно-сосудистыми больными, Смежные профессии.Содержание данных рекомендаций, подготовленных Европейским Общест-вом Кардиологов (european society of cardiology, esc) опубликовано исклю-чительно для использования в личных и образовательных целях. Не допуска-ется коммерческое использование содержания рекомендаций. Рекомендации esc не могут быть переведены на другие языки либо воспроизведены, полно-стью или частично, без письменного согласия esc. Для получения данного согласия письменная заявка должна быть направлена в oxford University press -организацию, издающую european Heart Journal и официально упол-номоченную esc, рассматривать подобные заявки.Отказ от ответственности. Рекомендации esc отражают взгляды esc и осно-ваны на тщательном анализе научных данных, доступных во время подготовки данных рекомендаций. Медицинским работникам следует придер живаться данных реко...

No abstract

SCAD accounts for approximately one third of ACS in young women with ≤1 CRF. The combination of specific angiographic signs and OCT imaging facilitates the diagnosis of ambiguous cases without intimal rupture.

Aims The aim of this study was to understand the impact of optical coherence tomography (OCT)-detected thin-cap fibroatheroma (TCFA) on clinical outcomes of diabetes mellitus (DM) patients with fractional flow reserve (FFR)-negative lesions. Methods and results COMBINE OCT-FFR study was a prospective, double-blind, international, natural history study. After FFR assessment, and revascularization of FFR-positive lesions, patients with ≥1 FFR-negative lesions (target lesions) were classified in two groups based on the presence or absence of ≥1 TCFA lesion. The primary endpoint compared FFR-negative TCFA-positive patients with FFR-negative TCFA-negative patients for a composite of cardiac mortality, target vessel myocardial infarction, clinically driven target lesion revascularization or unstable angina requiring hospitalization at 18 months. Among 550 patients enrolled, 390 (81%) patients had ≥1 FFR-negative lesions. Among FFR-negative patients, 98 (25%) were TCFA positive and 292 (75%) were TCFA negative. The incidence of the primary endpoint was 13.3% and 3.1% in TCFA-positive vs. TCFA-negative groups, respectively (hazard ratio 4.65; 95% confidence interval, 1.99–10.89; P < 0.001). The Cox regression multivariable analysis identified TCFA as the strongest predictor of major adverse clinical events (MACE) (hazard ratio 5.12; 95% confidence interval 2.12–12.34; P < 0.001). Conclusions Among DM patients with ≥1 FFR-negative lesions, TCFA-positive patients represented 25% of this population and were associated with a five-fold higher rate of MACE despite the absence of ischaemia. This discrepancy between the impact of vulnerable plaque and ischaemia on future adverse events may represent a paradigm shift for coronary artery disease risk stratification in DM patients.

BackgroundDespite the promise of telemedicine to improve care for ischaemic heart disease, there are significant obstacles to implementation. Demonstrating improvement in patient-centred outcomes is important to support development of these innovative strategies.ObjectiveTo assess the impact of telemedicine interventions on mortality after acute myocardial infarction (AMI).MethodsArticles were searched in MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), Base de Dados de Enfermagem (BDENF), Indice Bibliográfico Español en Ciencias de la Salud (IBECs), Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar, from January 2004 to January 2018. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. In-hospital mortality (primary outcome), and door-to-balloon (DTB) time, 30-day mortality and long-term mortality (secondary outcomes) were assessed. Random effects models were applied to estimate pooled results.ResultsThirty non-randomised controlled and seven quasi-experimental studies were included (16 960 patients). They were classified as moderate or serious risk of bias by ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies–of Interventions tool). In 31 studies, the intervention was prehospital ECG transmission. Telemedicine was associated with reduced in-hospital mortality compared with usual care (relative risk (RR) 0.63(95% confidence interval[CI] 0.55 to 0.72); I2 <0.001%). DTB time was consistently reduced (mean difference −28 (95% CI −35 to –20) min), but showed large heterogeneity (I2=94%). Thirty-day mortality (RR 0.62;95% CI 0.43 to 0.85) and long-term mortality (RR 0.61(95% CI 0.40 to 0.92)) were also reduced, with moderate heterogeneity (I2=52%).ConclusionsThere is moderate-quality evidence that telemedicine strategies, in particular ECG transmission, combined with the usual care for AMI are associated with reduced in-hospital mortality and very-low quality evidence that they reduce DTB time, 30-day mortality and long-term mortality.

Background: Polymer-free amphilimus-eluting stents (PF-AES) represent a novel elution technology in the current era of drug-eluting stents. The clinical safety and efficacy of PF-AES as compared with latest-generation permanent-polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents (PP-ZES) have not yet been investigated in a large randomized trial. Methods: In this physician-initiated, prospective, multicenter, randomized, noninferiority trial, an all-comers population requiring percutaneous coronary intervention was enrolled across 3 European sites. Randomization (1:1 ratio) to PP-ZES or PF-AES was performed after stratification for troponin status and diabetes mellitus. In both treatment arms, troponin-positive patients were planned for 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy, whereas troponin-negative patients were planned for 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy. Outcome assessors were blinded to the allocated treatment. The device-oriented primary end point of target-lesion failure was defined as cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target-lesion revascularization at 12-months as analyzed by modified intention-to-treat (80% power, and a 3.5% noninferiority margin). Results: In total, 1502 patients were randomized and 1491 treated with the assigned stent and available for follow-up. The primary end point occurred in 42 (5.6%) of the 744 patients receiving PP-ZES versus 46 (6.2%) of the 747 patients receiving PF-AES. PF-AES were clinically noninferior to PP-ZES (risk difference, 0.5%; upper limit 1-sided 95% confidence interval, 2.6%; P noninferiority =0.0086). Cardiac death occurred in 10 (1.3%) versus 10 patients (1.3%; P value for difference, 1.00), target-vessel myocardial infarction occurred in 18 (2.4%) versus 17 patients (2.3%; P value for difference, 0.87), and target-lesion revascularization occurred in 22 (2.9%) versus 20 patients (2.6%; P value for difference, 0.75) for PF-AES as compared with PP-ZES. Overall, definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 1.0%. Conclusions: PF-AES were noninferior to PP-ZES regarding target-lesion failure at 12 months. Findings regarding the secondary end point and prespecified subgroups were generally consistent with that of the primary end point. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02328898.