The purpose of this study was to evaluate the Genous^TM endothelial progenitor cell capturing stent vs. the Taxus Liberté paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with de novo coronary lesions with a high-risk of coronary restenosis. We randomly assigned 193 patients with lesions carrying a high risk of restenosis to have the Genous stent or the Taxus stent implanted. Lesions were considered high risk of restenosis if one of the following applied: chronic total occlusion, lesion length >23 mm, vessel diameter <2.8 mm, or any lesion in a diabetic patient. At 1-year, the rate of the primary end point, target vessel failure (TVF), was 17.3% in the Genous stent group when compared with 10.5% in the Taxus stent group [risk difference (RD) 6.8%, 95% CI −3.1 to 16.7%], a difference predominantly due to a higher incidence of repeat revascularization in patients treated with the Genous stent. In contrast, no stent thrombosis was observed in the Genous stent group compared to 4 stent thromboses in the Taxus stent group (RD −4.2%; 95% CI −10.3 to 0.3%). Repeat angiography between 6 and 12 months in a subgroup of patients showed a significantly higher late loss in the Genous stent compared with the Taxus stent (1.14 ± 0.64 and 0.55 ± 0.61 mm). In patients with lesions carrying a high risk of restenosis, the Genous stent resulted in a non-significant higher rate of TVF compared with the Taxus stent mainly due to more repeat revascularizations in the Genous stent group. There were four stent thromboses with Taxus stent, none with the Genous stent.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has evolved to standard treatment of severe aortic stenosis in patients with an intermediate to high surgical risk. Computed tomography coronary angiography (CTCA) could partially replace invasive coronary angiography to diagnose significant coronary artery disease in the work-up for TAVI. A literature search was performed in MEDLINE and EMBASE for papers comparing CTCA and coronary angiography in TAVI candidates. The primary endpoint was the diagnostic accuracy of CTCA, compared to coronary angiography, for detection of significant (>50% diameter stenosis) coronary artery disease, measured as sensitivity, specificity, positive—(PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV). Seven studies were included, with a cumulative sample size of 1,275 patients. The patient-based pooled sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 95, 65, 71 and 94% respectively. Quality assessment revealed excellent and good quality in terms of applicability and risk of bias respectively, with the main concern being patient selection. In conclusion, on the basis of a significance cut-off value of 50% diameter stenosis, CTCA provides acceptable diagnostic accuracy for the exclusion of coronary artery disease in patients referred for TAVI. Using the routinely performed preoperative computed tomography scans as a gatekeeper for coronary angiography could decrease additional coronary angiographies by 37% in this high-risk and fragile population.

Background—: Interventional cardiologists are increasingly exposed to radiation-induced diseases like cataract and the stochastic risk of left-sided brain tumors. The RADPAD is a sterile, disposable, lead-free shield placed on the patient with the aim to minimize operator-received scatter radiation. The objective of the trial was to examine the RADPAD’s efficacy in a real-world situation. Methods and Results—: In the current, double-blind, sham-controlled, all-comer trial, patients undergoing diagnostic catheterization or percutaneous coronary interventions were randomized in a 1:1:1 ratio to a radiation absorbing shield (RADPAD), standard treatment (NOPAD), or a sham shield (SHAMPAD). The sham shield allowed testing for shield-induced radiation behavior. The primary outcome was the difference in relative exposure of the primary operator between the RADPAD and NOPAD arms and was defined as the ratio between operator’s exposure (E in µSv) and patient exposure (dose area product in mGy·cm ² ), measured per procedure. A total of 766 consecutive coronary procedures were randomized to the use of RADPAD (N=255), NOPAD (N=255), or SHAMPAD (N=256). The use of RADPAD was associated with a 20% reduction in relative operator exposure compared with that of NOPAD ( P =0.01) and a 44% relative exposure reduction compared with the use of a SHAMPAD ( P <0.001). Use of the SHAMPAD was associated with a 43% higher relative radiation exposure than procedures with NOPAD ( P =0.009). Conclusions—: In clinical daily practice, the standard use of the RADPAD radiation shield reduced operator radiation exposure compared with procedures with NOPAD or SHAMPAD. This study supports the routine use of RADPAD in the catheterization laboratory. Clinical Trial Registration—: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT03139968.