MD; for the Nordic PCI Study GroupBackground-The optimal stenting strategy in coronary artery bifurcation lesions is unknown. In the present study, a strategy of stenting both the main vessel and the side branch (MVϩSB) was compared with a strategy of stenting the main vessel only, with optional stenting of the side branch (MV), with sirolimus-eluting stents. Methods and Results-A total of 413 patients with a bifurcation lesion were randomized. The primary end point was a major adverse cardiac event: cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target-vessel revascularization, or stent thrombosis after 6 months. At 6 months, there were no significant differences in rates of major adverse cardiac events between the groups (MVϩSB 3.4%, MV 2.9%; PϭNS). In the MVϩSB group, there were significantly longer procedure and fluoroscopy times, higher contrast volumes, and higher rates of procedure-related increases in biomarkers of myocardial injury. A total of 307 patients had a quantitative coronary assessment at the index procedure and after 8 months. The combined angiographic end point of diameter stenosis Ͼ50% of main vessel and occlusion of the side branch after 8 months was found in 5.3% in the MV group and 5.1% in the MVϩSB group (PϭNS). Conclusions-Independent of stenting strategy, excellent clinical and angiographic results were obtained with percutaneous treatment of de novo coronary artery bifurcation lesions with sirolimus-eluting stents. The simple stenting strategy used in the MV group was associated with reduced procedure and fluoroscopy times and lower rates of procedure-related biomarker elevation. Therefore, this strategy can be recommended as the routine bifurcation stenting technique.
Patients who survive the first month after an STEMI treated with primary PCI have an excellent prognosis, with a <1.5% annual risk of successive cardiac death. Noncardiac causes are responsible for the majority of later deaths in these patients.
SummaryBackgroundRemote ischaemic conditioning with transient ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm has been shown to reduce myocardial infarct size in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). We investigated whether remote ischaemic conditioning could reduce the incidence of cardiac death and hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months.MethodsWe did an international investigator-initiated, prospective, single-blind, randomised controlled trial (CONDI-2/ERIC-PPCI) at 33 centres across the UK, Denmark, Spain, and Serbia. Patients (age >18 years) with suspected STEMI and who were eligible for PPCI were randomly allocated (1:1, stratified by centre with a permuted block method) to receive standard treatment (including a sham simulated remote ischaemic conditioning intervention at UK sites only) or remote ischaemic conditioning treatment (intermittent ischaemia and reperfusion applied to the arm through four cycles of 5-min inflation and 5-min deflation of an automated cuff device) before PPCI. Investigators responsible for data collection and outcome assessment were masked to treatment allocation. The primary combined endpoint was cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure at 12 months in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02342522) and is completed.FindingsBetween Nov 6, 2013, and March 31, 2018, 5401 patients were randomly allocated to either the control group (n=2701) or the remote ischaemic conditioning group (n=2700). After exclusion of patients upon hospital arrival or loss to follow-up, 2569 patients in the control group and 2546 in the intervention group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. At 12 months post-PPCI, the Kaplan-Meier-estimated frequencies of cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure (the primary endpoint) were 220 (8·6%) patients in the control group and 239 (9·4%) in the remote ischaemic conditioning group (hazard ratio 1·10 [95% CI 0·91–1·32], p=0·32 for intervention versus control). No important unexpected adverse events or side effects of remote ischaemic conditioning were observed.InterpretationRemote ischaemic conditioning does not improve clinical outcomes (cardiac death or hospitalisation for heart failure) at 12 months in patients with STEMI undergoing PPCI.FundingBritish Heart Foundation, University College London Hospitals/University College London Biomedical Research Centre, Danish Innovation Foundation, Novo Nordisk Foundation, TrygFonden.
Background-Postconditioning has been suggested to reduce myocardial damage during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI) in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. However, because clinical experience is limited, we examined the cardioprotective effects of postconditioning, using cardiac MRI in patients treated with PPCI. Methods and Results-One hundred eighteen patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction referred for PPCI were randomly assigned to have either conventional PPCI or PPCI with postconditioning. Postconditioning was performed immediately after obtained reperfusion with 4 balloon occlusions, each lasting 30 seconds, followed by 30 seconds of reperfusion. The primary end point was myocardial salvage after 3 months as judged by delayed enhancement cardiac MRI. We found a 19% relative reduction of infarct size in the postconditioning group (51Ϯ16% of total area at risk versus 63Ϯ17%, PϽ0.01), corresponding to a 31% increase in salvage ratio. The number of patients developing heart failure was significantly fewer in the postconditioning group (27% versus 46%, Pϭ0.048). No significant evidence of interaction between the impact of postconditioning and the location of the culprit lesion or size of the myocardium at risk was detected (Pϭ0.21 and Pϭ0.71).
Conclusions-Mechanical
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.