No abstract

Background The treatment of left main bifurcation stenoses remains challenging. Aims We compare the “Reverse T and Protrusion” (reverse-TAP) technique to Double-Kissing and crush (DK-crush). Methods The study was designed as non-inferiority trial, the primary endpoint was percentage stent expansion in the ostial side branch at optical coherence tomography. Results 52 consecutive patients (13 females, 17 diabetics, Syntax score 25 [22–29]) with complex coronary bifurcation lesions of the left main were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to Reverse-TAP or DK-crush stenting. The intervention was performed according to protocol in all patients in both randomization groups. Side branch stent expansion was 75 [67–90]% in the DK-crush group and 86 [75–95]% in the reverse-TAP group (one-sided 97.5% lower parametric confidence interval: − 0.28%; P < 0.01 for non-inferiority; P = 0.037 for superiority). Side branch balloon pressure during final kissing was higher in the DK-crush group (14 [12–16] vs. reverse-TAP: 13 [12–14]; P = 0.043). Procedural time was shorter with reverse-TAP (DK-crush: 32 [24–44] min vs reverse–TAP: 25 [22–33] min; P = 0.044). Other procedural parameters were not different between groups. There was no difference in any of the safety endpoints up to 1 month. Conclusions A reverse-TAP strategy for the interventional treatment of complex coronary lesions was non-inferior and superior to DK-crush for the primary endpoint side branch expansion while requiring less time. A larger study testing long-term clinical outcomes is warranted. Trail Registration NCT: NCT03714750. Graphical abstract

BackgroundApproximately 50% of the patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) have additional stenotic lesions in non-infarct-related coronary arteries. The decision whether these stenoses require further treatment is routinely based on angiography alone. The quantitative flow ratio (QFR) is a simple non-invasive method that may help quantify the functional significance of these intermediate coronary artery lesions. The aim of our single-center, randomized superiority trial is to test the impact and efficacy of QFR, as compared to angiography, in the treatment of patients with ACS with multivessel coronary artery disease. Primary goal of the study is to investigate 1. The impact of QFR on the proportion of patients receiving PCI vs. conservative therapy and 2. whether QFR improves angina pectoris and overall cardiovascular outcomes.Methods and AnalysisAfter treatment of the culprit lesion(s), a total of 200 consecutive ACS patients will be randomized 1:1 to angiography- vs. QFR-guided revascularization of non-culprit stenoses. Patients and clinicians responsible are blinded to the randomization group. The primary functional endpoint is defined as the proportion of patients assigned to medical treatment in the two groups. The primary clinical endpoint is a composite of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, revascularization and significant angina at 12 months. Secondary endpoints include changes in the SAQ subgroups, and clinical events at 3- and 12-month follow-up.DiscussionThis study is designed to investigate whether QFR-based decision-making is associated with a decrease in angina and an improved prognosis in patients with multivessel disease.Trial Registration NumberClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04808310).

BackgroundMicrovascular angina (MVA) is a frequent condition for which our understanding of the disease pathophysiology and therapeutic perspectives remain unsatisfactory. The current study is designed to test whether an improvement in microvascular resistances could be achieved by elevating backward pressure in the coronary venous system, based on the hypothesis that an increase in hydrostatic pressure could cause a dilatation of the myocardial arterioles, resulting in a reduction of vascular resistances. This approach might have potential clinical implications, as it might suggest that interventions aimed at increasing coronary sinus (CS) pressure might result in a decrease in angina in this subset of patients. The aim of our single-center, sham-controlled, crossover randomized trial is to investigate the effect of an acute increase in CS pressure on a number of parameters of coronary physiology, including parameters of coronary microvascular resistance and conductance.Methods and analysisA total of 20 consecutive patients with angina pectoris and coronary microvascular dysfunction (CMD) will be enrolled in the study. Hemodynamic parameters including aortic and distal coronary pressure, CS and right atrial pressure, and the coronary microvascular resistance index will be measured at rest and during hyperemia in a randomized crossover design during incomplete balloon occlusion (“balloon”) and with the deflated balloon in the right atrium (“sham”). The primary end point of the study is the change in index of microvascular resistances (IMR) after acute modulation of CS pressure, while key secondary end points include changes in the other parameters.DiscussionThe aim of the study is to investigate whether occlusion of the CS is associated with a decrease in IMR. The results will provide mechanistic evidence for the development of a treatment for patients with MVA.Clinical trial registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/, identifier NCT05034224.

BackgroundThere is a debate regarding the best stent strategy for unprotected distal left main (LM) bifurcation disease. Among two-stent techniques, double-kissing and crush (DKC) is favored in current guidelines but is complex and requires expertise. Reverse T and Protrusion (rTAP) was shown to be a comparable strategy regarding short-term efficacy and safety, but with reduced procedural complexity.AimTo compare rTAP vs. DKC by optical coherence tomography (OCT) on the intermediate term.Methods52 consecutive patients with complex unprotected LM stenoses (Medina 0,1,1 or 1,1,1) were randomized to either DKC or rTAP and followed-up for a median of 189[180–263] days for clinical and OCT outcomes.ResultsAt follow-up OCT showed similar change in the side branch (SB) ostial area (primary endpoint). The confluence polygon showed a higher percentage of malapposed stent struts in the rTAP group that did not reach statistical significance (rTAP: 9.7[4.4–18.3] % vs. DKC: 3[0.07–10.9] %; p = 0.064). It also showed a trend towards larger neointimal area relative to the stent area (DKC: 8.8 [6.9 to 13.4] % vs. rTAP: 6.5 [3.9 to 8.9] %; p = 0.07), and smaller luminal area (DKC: 9.54[8.09–11.07] mm2 vs. rTAP: 11.21[9.53–12.42] mm²; p = 0.09) in the DKC group. The minimum luminal area in the parent vessel distal to the bifurcation was significantly smaller in the DKC group (DKC: 4.64 [3.64 to 5.34] mm² vs. rTAP: 6.76 [5.20 to 7.29] mm²; p = 0.03). This segment also showed a trend for smaller stent areas (p = 0.05 to 0.09), and a bigger neointimal area relative to the stent area (DKC: 8.94 [5.43 to 10.5]% vs. rTAP: 4.75 [0.08 to 8.5]%; p = 0.06) in the DKC patients. The incidence of clinical events was comparably low in both groups.ConclusionAt 6-months, OCT showed a similar change in the SB ostial area (primary endpoint) in rTAP compared to DKC. There was also a trend for smaller luminal areas in the confluence polygon and the distal parent vessel, and a larger neointimal area relative to the stent area, in DKC, along with a tendency for more malapposed stent struts in rTAP.Clinical Trial Registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03714750, identifier: NCT03714750.

Background—Several methods to reduce radiation exposure in the setting of coronary procedures are available on the market, and we previously showed that additional radiation shields reduce operator exposure during radial interventions. We set out to examine the efficacy of real-time personal dosimetry monitoring in a real-world setting of radial artery catheterization. Methods and Results—In an all-comer prospective, parallel study, consecutive coronary diagnostic and intervention procedures were performed with the use of standard radiation shield alone (control group) or with the addition of a real-time dosimetry monitoring system (Raysafe, Billdal, Sweden, monitoring group). The primary outcome was the difference in exposure of the primary operator among groups. Additional endpoints included patient, nurse, second operator exposure and fluoroscopy time. A total of 700 procedures were included in the analysis (n = 369 in the monitoring group). There were no differences among groups in patients’ body mass index (p = 0.232), type of procedure (intervention vs. diagnostic, p = 0.172), and patient sex (p = 0.784). Fluoroscopy time was shorter in the monitoring group (5.6 (5.1–6.2) min vs. 7.0 (6.1–7.7) min, p = 0.023). Radiation exposure was significantly lower in the monitoring group for the patient (135 (115–151) µSv vs. 208 (176–245) µSv, p < 0.0001) but not for the first operator (9 (7–11) µSv vs. 10 (8–11), p = 0.70) and the assistant (2 (1–2) µSv vs. 2 (1–2) µSv, p = 0.121). Conclusions—In clinical daily practice, the use of a real-time dosimetry monitoring device reduces patient radiation exposure and fluoroscopy time without an effect on operator radiation exposure.