This Consensus Document is the first of two reports summarizing the views of an expert panel organized by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) on the clinical use of intracoronary imaging including intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT). The first document appraises the role of intracoronary imaging to guide percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) in clinical practice. Current evidence regarding the impact of intracoronary imaging guidance on cardiovascular outcomes is summarized, and patients or lesions most likely to derive clinical benefit from an imaging-guided intervention are identified. The relevance of the use of IVUS or OCT prior to PCI for optimizing stent sizing (stent length and diameter) and planning the procedural strategy is discussed. Regarding post-implantation imaging, the consensus group recommends key parameters that characterize an optimal PCI result and provides cut-offs to guide corrective measures and optimize the stenting result. Moreover, routine performance of intracoronary imaging in patients with stent failure (restenosis or stent thrombosis) is recommended. Finally, strengths and limitations of IVUS and OCT for guiding PCI and assessing stent failures and areas that warrant further research are critically discussed.

This Consensus Document is the first of two reports summarizing the views of an expert panel organized by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) on the clinical use of intracoronary imaging including intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and optical coherence tomography (OCT). The first document appraises the role of intracoronary imaging to guide percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) in clinical practice. Current evidence regarding the impact of intracoronary imaging guidance on cardiovascular outcomes is summarized, and patients or lesions most likely to derive clinical benefit from an imaging-guided intervention are identified. The relevance of the use of IVUS or OCT prior to PCI for optimizing stent sizing (stent length and diameter) and planning the procedural strategy is discussed. Regarding post-implantation imaging, the consensus group recommends key parameters that characterize an optimal PCI result and provides cut-offs to guide corrective measures and optimize the stenting result. Moreover, routine performance of intracoronary imaging in patients with stent failure (restenosis or stent thrombosis) is recommended. Finally, strengths and limitations of IVUS and OCT for guiding PCI and assessing stent failures and areas that warrant further research are critically discussed.

This consensus document is the second of two reports summarizing the views of an expert panel organized by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) on the clinical use of intracoronary imaging including intravascular ultrasound (IVUS), optical coherence tomography (OCT), and near infrared spectroscopy (NIRS)-IVUS. Beyond guidance of stent selection and optimization of deployment, invasive imaging facilitates angiographic interpretation and may guide treatment in acute coronary syndrome. Intravascular imaging can provide additional important diagnostic information when confronted with angiographically ambiguous lesions and allows assessment of plaque morphology enabling identification of vulnerability characteristics. This second document focuses on useful imaging features to identify culprit and vulnerable coronary plaque, which offers the interventional cardiologist guidance on when to adopt an intracoronary imaging-guided approach to the treatment of coronary artery disease and provides an appraisal of intravascular imaging-derived metrics to define the haemodynamic significance of coronary lesions.

Background-Transcatheter aortic valve-in-valve implantation is an emerging therapeutic alternative for patients with a failed surgical bioprosthesis and may obviate the need for reoperation. We evaluated the clinical results of this technique using a large, worldwide registry. Key Words: bioprosthesis Ⅲ transcatheter aortic valve implantation Ⅲ valve-in-valve M ore than 200 000 surgical aortic valve replacements (SAVR) are performed annually worldwide, with a substantial shift toward the use of bioprostheses rather than mechanical valves. 1 Bioprostheses have limited durability, and most are expected to degenerate and eventually fail within 10 to 20 years. 2-4 As a result, it is estimated that in the subsequent few years, many patients will suffer from failed surgical bioprosthetic valves. Reoperation, the standard of care for these patients, is occasionally a high-risk procedure that carries significant mortality and morbidity risks, especially because many of these patients are elderly and have numerous comorbidities. [5][6][7] Continuing medical education (CME) credit is available for this article. Go to http://cme.ahajournals.org to take the quiz. Methods and Results-The

No abstract

Background New-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) have been mostly investigated by means of head-to-head non-inferiority trials, which typically showed comparable efficacy and greater safety as compared with early-generation DES. Evidence related to new-generation DES versus bare-metal stents (BMS) is more limited, and there remain uncertainties on their comparative safety profile. Methods We performed an individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing new-generation DES with BMS among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The protocol of the study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017060520). The primary outcome was the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction. Data were pooled in a one-stage random effects metaanalysis and examined at maximum follow-up and with 1-year landmark. Risk estimates are reported as hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (95%CI). Findings We obtained IPD data from 20 randomized trials including a total of 26,616 patients, with 3•2±1•8 years mean follow-up. The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the DES group than in the BMS group (HR 0•84, 95%CI 0•78 to 0•90, P<0•001) owing to lower risk of myocardial infarction (HR 0•79, 95%CI 0•71 to 0•88, P<0•001) and weaker evidence for a possible cardiac mortality benefit (HR 0•89, 95%CI 0•78 to 1•01, P=0•075). All-cause death was unaffected (HR with DES, 0•96, 95%CI 0•88 to 1•05, P=0•358), but DES reduced the risk of definite stent thrombosis (HR 0•63, 95%CI 0•50 to 0•80, P<0•001) and targetvessel revascularization (HR 0•55, 95%CI 0•50 to 0•60, P<0•001). There was evidence for a time-dependent treatment effect, with DES being associated with lower risks of the primary outcome during the first year followed by a null effect in the subsequent years. Interpretation New-generation DES instead of BMS were associated with sustained reduction of cardiac death or myocardial infarction owing to lower event rates within the first year without offsetting effects thereafter.

No abstract

Despite numerous possible risk factors, the most common and consistent predictors of stent thrombosis are early antiplatelet therapy discontinuation, extent of coronary disease, and stent number/length.