No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives: This prospective, observational all-comers registry assessed the safety and efficacy of a Drug Coated Balloon-only strategy (DCB-only) in patients with coronary lesions.Background: Data regarding the performance of a DCB-only approach, especially in patients with previously untreated de-novo coronary artery disease (CAD), are still limited.Methods: This study was conducted as an international, multicenter registry primarily enrolling patients with de-novo CAD. However, it was also possible to include patients with in-stent restenosis (ISR). The primary endpoint was the rate of clinically driven target lesion revascularization (TLR) after 9 months.Results: A total of 1,025 patients with a mean age of 64.0 ± 11.2 years were enrolled. The majority of treated lesions were de-novo (66.9%), followed by drug-eluting-stent ISR (DES-ISR; 22.6%) and bare-metal-stent ISR (BMS-ISR; 10.5%). The TLR rate was lower in the de-novo group (2.3%) when compared to BMS-(2.9%) and DES-ISR (5.8%) (P = 0.049). Regarding MACE, there was a trend toward fewer events in the de-novo group (5.6%) than in the BMS-(7.8%) and DES-ISR cohort (9.6%) (P = 0.131). Subgroup analyses revealed that lesion type (95% CI 1.127-6.587); P = 0.026) and additional stent implantation (95% CI 0.054-0.464; P = 0.001) were associated with higher TLR rates. Conclusions:Our results show that DCB-only angioplasty of de-novo coronary lesions is associated with low MACE and TLR rates. Thus, DCBs appear to be an attractive alternative for the interventional, stentless treatment of suitable de-novo coronary lesions. K E Y W O R D Scoronary intervention, devices, MACE, TLR, tools

Introduction : The etiology of myocarditis often remains undetermined. A large variety of infectious agents, systemic diseases, drugs, and toxins can cause the disease. We report the case of a 19-year-old man who developed myocarditis three days after Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 booster vaccination. Case report : A 19-year-old man, presenting with troponin-positive acute chest pain, was referred to our department. He had received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine three days prior to his admission. The diagnosis of acute myocarditis was confirmed by cardiovascular magnetic resonance imaging. Patient hemodynamic status remained stable during hospitalization. The left ventricular ejection fraction was preserved during hospital stay and at one-month follow-up. We found no evidence for another infectious or autoimmune etiology. Conclusion : Although imputability of the vaccine cannot be formally established, the findings raise the possibility of an association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccination and acute myocarditis.

The present findings suggest the preferential use of pantoprazole compared with omeprazole in patients receiving clopidogrel to avoid any potential negative interaction with CYP2C19.

This study showed that assessment of platelet function inhibition by clopidogrel is highly test-specific. Indeed, our results demonstrated a poor agreement between different platelet assays and suggested that identification of clopidogrel non responders is test-dependent.