No abstract

Outcomes of chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have improved because of advancements in equipment and techniques. With global collaboration and knowledge sharing, we have identified 7 common principles that are widely accepted as best practices for CTO-PCI.  1. Ischemic symptom improvement is the primary indication for CTO-PCI.  2. Dual coronary angiography and in-depth and structured review of the angiogram (and, if available, coronary computed tomography angiography) are key for planning and safely performing CTO-PCI.  3. Use of a microcatheter is essential for optimal guidewire manipulation and exchanges.  4. Antegrade wiring, antegrade dissection and reentry, and the retrograde approach are all complementary and necessary crossing strategies. Antegrade wiring is the most common initial technique, whereas retrograde and antegrade dissection and reentry are often required for more complex CTOs.  5. If the initially selected crossing strategy fails, efficient change to an alternative crossing technique increases the likelihood of eventual PCI success, shortens procedure time, and lowers radiation and contrast use.  6. Specific CTO-PCI expertise and volume and the availability of specialized equipment will increase the likelihood of crossing success and facilitate prevention and management of complications, such as perforation.  7. Meticulous attention to lesion preparation and stenting technique, often requiring intracoronary imaging, is required to ensure optimum stent expansion and minimize the risk of short- and long-term adverse events. These principles have been widely adopted by experienced CTO-PCI operators and centers currently achieving high success and acceptable complication rates. Outcomes are less optimal at less experienced centers, highlighting the need for broader adoption of the aforementioned 7 guiding principles along with the development of additional simple and safe CTO crossing and revascularization strategies through ongoing research, education, and training.

Additional CTO PCI within 1 week after primary PCI for STEMI was feasible and safe. In patients with STEMI and concurrent CTO, we did not find an overall benefit for CTO PCI in terms of LVEF or LVEDV. The finding that early CTO PCI in the left anterior descending coronary artery subgroup was beneficial warrants further investigation. (Evaluating Xience and Left Ventricular Function in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Occlusions After ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction; NTR1108).

No abstract

Aims: We aimed to investigate the rapid induction of therapeutic hypothermia using the ZOLL Proteus Intravascular Temperature Management System in patients with anterior ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) without cardiac arrest. Methods and results:A total of 50 patients were randomised; 22 patients (88%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 69-97%) in the hypothermia group and 23 patients (92%; 95% CI: 74-99) in the control group completed cardiac magnetic resonance imaging at four to six days and 30-day follow-up. Intravascular temperature at coronary guidewire crossing after 20.5 minutes of endovascular cooling decreased to 33.6°C (range 31.9-35.5°C). There was a 17-minute (95% CI: 4.6-29.8 min) cooling-related delay to reperfusion. In "per protocol" analysis, median infarct size/left ventricular mass was 16.7% in the hypothermia group versus 23.8% in the control group (absolute reduction 7.1%, relative reduction 30%; p=0.31) and median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 42% in the hypothermia group and 40% in the control group (absolute reduction 2.4%, relative reduction 6%; p=0.36). Except for self-terminating paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (32% versus 8%; p=0.074), there was no excess of adverse events in the hypothermia group.Conclusions: We rapidly and safely cooled patients with anterior STEMI to 33.6°C at the time of coronary guidewire crossing. This is ≥1.1°C lower than in previous cooling studies. Except for self-terminating atrial fibrillation, there was no excess of adverse events and no clinically important cooling-related delay to reperfusion. A statistically non-significant numerical 7.1% absolute and 30% relative reduction in infarct size warrants a pivotal trial powered for efficacy. ClinicalTrials.

No abstract

EXPLORE trial number NTR1108 www.trialregister.nl.

IMPORTANCE The optimal anticoagulant for patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) managed with an invasive strategy remains controversial.OBJECTIVE To compare the clinical efficacy and safety of otamixaban, a novel intravenous direct factor Xa inhibitor, with that of unfractionated heparin plus downstream eptifibatide in patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing a planned early invasive strategy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Randomized, double-blind, active-controlled superiority trial that enrolled 13 229 patients with NSTE-ACS and a planned early invasive strategy, at 568 active sites in 55 countries and conducted between April 2010 and February 2013. A planned interim analysis was conducted for otamixaban dose selection.INTERVENTIONS Eligible participants were randomized to otamixaban (bolus and infusion, at 1 of 2 doses) or unfractionated heparin plus, at the time of percutaneous coronary intervention, eptifibatide. The otamixaban dose selected at interim analysis was an intravenous bolus of 0.080 mg/kg followed by an infusion of 0.140 mg/kg per hour. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary efficacy outcome was the composite of all-cause death or new myocardial infarction through day 7.RESULTS Rates of the primary efficacy outcome were 5.5% (279 of 5105 patients) randomized to receive otamixaban and 5.7% (310 of 5466 patients) randomized to receive unfractionated heparin plus eptifibatide (adjusted relative risk, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.85-1.16]; P = .93). There were no differences for the secondary end points, including procedural thrombotic complications. The primary safety outcome of Thrombosis in Myocardial Infarction major or minor bleeding through day 7 was increased by otamixaban (3.1% vs 1.5%; relative risk, 2.13 [95% CI, 1.63-2.78]; P < .001). Results were consistent across prespecified subgroups.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Otamixaban did not reduce the rate of ischemic events relative to unfractionated heparin plus eptifibatide but did increase bleeding. These findings do not support the use of otamixaban for patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing planned early percutaneous coronary intervention.