In this explorative randomized controlled trial involving mechanically ventilated patients with CS after AMI, routine treatment with pMCS was not associated with reduced 30-day mortality compared with IABP. (IMPRESS in Severe Shock; NTR3450).

In this preliminary report of a trial involving patients undergoing PCI, there was no significant difference in the rate of target-vessel failure between the patients who received a bioresorbable scaffold and the patients who received a metallic stent. The bioresorbable scaffold was associated with a higher incidence of device thrombosis than the metallic stent through 2 years of follow-up. (Funded by Abbott Vascular; AIDA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01858077 .).

Despite advances in management, VGF remains one of the leading causes of poor in-hospital and long-term outcomes after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. New developments in VGF prevention such as gene therapy, external graft support, fully tissue-engineered grafts, hybrid grafts, and synthetic conduits are promising but unproven. Future efforts to reduce VGF require a multidisciplinary approach with a primary focus on prevention.

Aims Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with cardiogenic shock is strongly recommended (class IB) in the current guidelines. We performed meta-analyses to evaluate the evidence for IABP in STEMI with and without cardiogenic shock. Methods and results Medical literature databases were scrutinized to identify randomized trials comparing IABP with no IABP in STEMI. In absence of randomized trials, cohort studies of IABP in STEMI with cardiogenic shock were identified. Two separate meta-analyses were performed respectively. The first meta-analysis included seven randomized trials (n = 1009) of STEMI. IABP showed neither a 30-day survival benefit nor improved left ventricular ejection fraction, while being associated with significantly higher stroke and bleeding rates. The second meta-analysis included nine cohorts of STEMI patients with cardiogenic shock (n = 10529). In patients treated with thrombolysis, IABP was associated with an 18% [95% confidence interval (CI), 16-20%; P < 0.0001] decrease in 30 day mortality, albeit with significantly higher revascularization rates compared to patients without support. Contrariwise, in patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention, IABP was associated with a 6% (95% CI, 3-10%; P < 0.0008) increase in 30 day mortality. Conclusion The pooled randomized data do not support IABP in patients with high-risk STEMI. The meta-analysis of cohort studies in the setting of STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock supported IABP therapy adjunctive to thrombolysis. In contrast, the observational data did not support IABP therapy adjunctive to primary PCI. All available observational data concerning IABP therapy in the setting of cardiogenic shock is importantly hampered by bias and confounding. There is insufficient evidence endorsing the current guideline recommendation for the use of IABP therapy in the setting of STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock. Our meta-analyses challenge the current guideline recommendations.

An RI strategy reduces long-term rates of cardiovascular death or MI and the largest absolute effect in seen in higher-risk patients.

No abstract

No abstract

Background-Discordance between fractional flow reserve (FFR) and coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) may reflect important coronary pathophysiology but usually remains unnoticed in clinical practice. We evaluated the physiological basis and clinical outcome associated with FFR/CFVR discordance. Methods and Results-We studied 157 intermediate coronary stenoses in 157 patients, evaluated by FFR and CFVR between April 1997 and September 2006 in which revascularization was deferred. Long-term follow-up was performed to document the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events: cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization. Discordance between FFR and CFVR occurred in 31% and 37% of stenoses at the 0.75, and 0.80 FFR cut-off value, respectively, and was characterized by microvascular resistances during basal and hyperemic conditions. Follow-up duration amounted to 11.7 years (Q1-Q3, 9.9-13.3 years). Compared with concordant normal results of FFR and CFVR, a normal FFR with an abnormal CFVR was associated with significantly increased major adverse cardiac events rate throughout 10 years of follow-up, regardless of the FFR cut-off applied. In contrast, an abnormal FFR with a normal CFVR was associated with equivalent clinical outcome compared with concordant normal results: ≤3 years when FFR <0.75 was depicted abnormal and throughout 10 years of follow-up when FFR ≤0.80 was depicted abnormal. Conclusions-Discordance of CFVR with FFR originates from the involvement of the coronary microvasculature. Importantly, the risk for major adverse cardiac events associated with FFR/CFVR discordance is mainly attributable to stenoses where CFVR is abnormal. This emphasizes the requirement of intracoronary flow assessment in addition to coronary pressure for optimal risk stratification in stable coronary artery disease. (Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:301-311.)Key Words: coronary flow velocity reserve ◼ coronary microcirculation ◼ fractional flow reserve ◼ stable coronary artery disease