Clinical outcomes of state-of-the-art percutaneous coronary revascularization in patients with de novo three vessel disease : 1-year results of the SYNTAX II study

Contains fulltext : 182263.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)Aims: To investigate if recent technical and procedural developments in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) significantly influence outcomes in appropriately selected patients with three-vessel (3VD) coronary artery disease. Methods and results: The SYNTAX II study is a multicenter, all-comers, open-label, single arm study that investigated the impact of a contemporary PCI strategy on clinical outcomes in patients with 3VD in 22 centres from four European countries. The SYNTAX-II strategy includes: heart team decision-making utilizing the SYNTAX Score II (a clinical tool combining anatomical and clinical factors), coronary physiology guided revascularisation, implantation of thin strut bioresorbable-polymer drug-eluting stents, intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guided stent implantation, contemporary chronic total occlusion revascularisation techniques and guideline-directed medical therapy. The rate of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE [composite of all-cause death, cerebrovascular event, any myocardial infarction and any revascularisation]) at one year was compared to a predefined PCI cohort from the original SYNTAX-I trial selected on the basis of equipoise 4-year mortality between CABG and PCI. As an exploratory endpoint, comparisons were made with the historical CABG cohort of the original SYNTAX-I trial. Overall 708 patients were screened and discussed within the heart team; 454 patients were deemed appropriate to undergo PCI. At one year, the SYNTAX-II strategy was superior to the equipoise-derived SYNTAX-I PCI cohort (MACCE SYNTAX-II 10.6% vs. SYNTAX-I 17.4%; HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.39-0.85, P = 0.006). This difference was driven by a significant reduction in the incidence of MI (HR 0.27, 95% CI 0.11-0.70, P = 0.007) and revascularisation (HR 0.57, 95% CI 0.37-0.9, P = 0.015). Rates of all-cause death (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.27-1.73, P = 0.43) and stroke (HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.10-4.89, P = 0.71) were similar. The rate of definite stent thrombosis was significantly lower in SYNTAX-II (HR 0.26, 95% CI 0.07-0.97, P = 0.045). Conclusion: At one year, clinical outcomes with the SYNTAX-II strategy were associated with improved clinical results compared to the PCI performed in comparable patients from the original SYNTAX-I trial. Longer term follow-up is awaited and a randomized clinical trial with contemporary CABG is warranted. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02015832

Impact of a comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation programme versus coronary revascularisation in patients with stable angina pectoris: study protocol for the PRO-FIT randomised controlled trial

Background: Currently, in the majority of patients with stable angina pectoris (SAP) treatment consists of optimal medical treatment, potentially followed by coronary angiography and subsequent coronary revascularisation if necessary”. Recent work questioned the effectiveness of these invasive procedures in reducing re-events and improving prognosis. The potential of exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation on clinical outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease is well-known. However, in the modern era, no studies compared the effects of cardiac rehabilitation versus coronary revascularisation in patients with SAP. Methods: In this multicentre randomised controlled trial, 216 patients with stable angina pectoris and residual anginal complaints under optimal medical treatment will be randomised to: 1) usual care (i.e., coronary revascularisation), or 2) a 12-month cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programme. CR consists of a multidisciplinary intervention, including education, exercise training, lifestyle coaching and a dietary intervention with a stepped decline in supervision. The primary outcome will be anginal complaints (Seattle Angina Questionnaire-7) following the 12-month intervention. Secondary outcomes include cost-effectiveness, ischemic threshold during exercise, cardiovascular events, exercise capacity, quality of life and psychosocial wellbeing. Discussion: In this study, we will examine the hypothesis that multidisciplinary CR is at least equally effective in reducing anginal complaints as the contemporary invasive approach at 12-months follow-up for patients with SAP. If proven successful, this study will have significant impact on the treatment of patients with SAP as multidisciplinary CR is a less invasive and potentially less costly and better sustainable treatment than coronary revascularisations. Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register, NL9537. Registered 14 June 2021

Left and right ventricle assessment with Cardiac CT: validation study vs. Cardiac MR

Objectives To compare Magnetic Resonance (MR) and Computed Tomography (CT) for the assessment of left (LV) and right (RV) ventricular functional parameters. Methods Seventy nine patients underwent both Cardiac CT and Cardiac MR. Images were acquired using short axis (SAX) reconstructions for CT and 2D cine b-SSFP (balanced- steady state free precession) SAX sequence for MR, and evaluated using dedicated software. Results CT and MR images showed good agreement: LV EF (Ejection Fraction) (52±14% for CT vs. 52±14% for MR; r0 0.73; p>0.05); RV EF (47±12% for CT vs. 47±12% for MR; r00.74; p>0.05); LV EDV (End Diastolic Volume) (74± 21 ml/m 2 for CT vs. 76±25 ml/m 2 for MR; r00.59; p>0.05); RV EDV (84±25 ml/m 2 for CT vs. 80±23 ml/m 2 for MR; r0 0.58; p>0.05); LV ESV (End Systolic Volume)(37±19 ml/m 2 for CT vs. 38±23 ml/m 2 for MR; r00.76; p>0.05); RV ESV (46±21 ml/m 2 for CT vs. 43±18 ml/m 2 for MR; r00.70; p>0.05). Intra- and inter-observer variability were good, and the performance of CT was maintained for different EF subgroups. Conclusions Cardiac CT provides accurate and reproducible LVand RV volume parameters compared with MR, and can be considered as a reliable alternative for patients who are not suitable to undergo MR. Key Points • Cardiac-CT is able to provide Left and Right Ventricular function. • Cardiac-CT is accurate as MR for LV and RV volume assessment. • Cardiac-CT can provide accurate evaluation of coronary arteries and LV and RV function