FFRCT of 0.8 or less is a predictor of long-term clinical outcomes and is superior to clinically significant stenosis on coronary CT angiograms. A normal FFRCT is associated with favorable long-ter... BackgroundCoronary CT angiography with noninvasive fractional flow reserve (FFR) predicts lesion-specific ischemia when compared with invasive FFR. The longer term prognostic value of CT-derived FF...

Background— In a number of coronary bifurcation lesions, both the main vessel and the side branch need stent coverage. Using sirolimus eluting stents, we compared 2 dedicated bifurcation stent techniques, the crush and the culotte techniques in a randomized trial with separate clinical and angiographic end-points. Methods and Results— A total of 424 patients with a bifurcation lesion were randomized to crush (n=209) and culotte (n=215) stenting. The primary end point was major adverse cardiac events; cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, or stent thrombosis after 6 months. At 6 months there were no significant differences in major adverse cardiac event rates between the groups; crush 4.3%, culotte 3.7% ( P =0.87). Procedure and fluoroscopy times and contrast volumes were similar in the 2 groups. The rates of procedure-related increase in biomarkers of myocardial injury were 15.5% in crush versus 8.8% in culotte group ( P =0.08). A total of 324 patients had a quantitative coronary assessment at the index procedure and after 8 months. The angiographic end-points of in-segment and in-stent restenosis of main vessel and/or side branch after 8 months were found in 12.1% versus 6.6% ( P =0.10) and in 10.5% versus 4.5% ( P =0.046) in the crush and culotte groups, respectively. Conclusions— Both the crush and the culotte bifurcation stenting techniques were associated with similar and excellent clinical and angiographic results. Angiographically, there was a trend toward less in-segment restenosis and significantly reduced in-stent restenosis following culotte stenting.

In order to influence every day clinical practice professional organisations issue management guidelines. Cross-sectional surveys are used to evaluate the implementation of such guidelines. The present survey investigated screening for glucose perturbations in people with coronary artery disease and compared patients with known and newly detected type 2 diabetes with those without diabetes in terms of their life-style and pharmacological risk factor management in relation to contemporary European guidelines. A total of 6187 patients (18–80 years) with coronary artery disease and known glycaemic status based on a self reported history of diabetes (previously known diabetes) or the results of an oral glucose tolerance test and HbA1c (no diabetes or newly diagnosed diabetes) were investigated in EUROASPIRE IV including patients in 24 European countries 2012–2013. The patients were interviewed and investigated in order to enable a comparison between their actual risk factor control with that recommended in current European management guidelines and the outcome in previously conducted surveys. A total of 2846 (46 %) patients had no diabetes, 1158 (19 %) newly diagnosed diabetes and 2183 (35 %) previously known diabetes. The combined use of all four cardioprotective drugs in these groups was 53, 55 and 60 %, respectively. A blood pressure target of <140/90 mmHg was achieved in 68, 61, 54 % and a LDL-cholesterol target of <1.8 mmol/L in 16, 18 and 28 %. Patients with newly diagnosed and previously known diabetes reached an HbA1c 9.0 % (>75 mmol/mol). Of the patients with diabetes 69 % reported on low physical activity. The proportion of patients participating in cardiac rehabilitation programmes was low (≈40 %) and only 27 % of those with diabetes had attended diabetes schools. Compared with data from previous surveys the use of cardioprotective drugs had increased and more patients were achieving the risk factor treatment targets. Despite advances in patient management there is further potential to improve both the detection and management of patients with diabetes and coronary artery disease.

The use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) for temporary mechanical circulatory support in various clinical scenarios has been increasing consistently, despite the lack of sufficient evidence regarding its benefit and safety from adequately powered randomized controlled trials. Although the ARREST trial (Advanced Reperfusion Strategies for Patients with Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest and Refractory Ventricular Fibrillation) and a secondary analysis of the PRAGUE OHCA trial (Prague Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest) provided some evidence in favor of VA-ECMO in the setting of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, the INCEPTION trial (Early Initiation of Extracorporeal Life Support in Refractory Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest) has not found a relevant improvement of short-term mortality with extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In addition, the results of the recently published ECLS-SHOCK trial (Extracorporeal Life Support in Cardiogenic Shock) and ECMO-CS trial (Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in the Therapy of Cardiogenic Shock) discourage the routine use of VA-ECMO in patients with infarct-related cardiogenic shock. Ongoing clinical trials (ANCHOR [Assessment of ECMO in Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock, NCT04184635], REVERSE [Impella CP With VA ECMO for Cardiogenic Shock, NCT03431467], UNLOAD ECMO [Left Ventricular Unloading to Improve Outcome in Cardiogenic Shock Patients on VA-ECMO, NCT05577195], PIONEER [Hemodynamic Support With ECMO and IABP in Elective Complex High-risk PCI, NCT04045873]) may clarify the usefulness of VA-ECMO in specific patient subpopulations and the efficacy of combined mechanical circulatory support strategies. Pending further data to refine patient selection and management recommendations for VA-ECMO, it remains uncertain whether the present usage of this device improves outcomes.

The indications for conservative “best medical treatment” (BMT) versus additional renal artery stenting are a matter of ongoing debate. The RADAR study aimed to evaluate the impact of percutaneous renal artery stenting on the impaired renal function in patients with hemodynamically significant atherosclerotic renal artery stenosis (RAS). RADAR is an international, prospective, randomized (1:1) controlled study comparing BMT alone versus BMT plus renal artery stenting in patients with duplex sonographic hemodynamically relevant RAS. Follow-up assessments were at 2, 6, and 12 months and at 3 years. The primary endpoint was change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) at 12 months. Due to slow enrollment, RADAR was terminated early after inclusion of 86 of the scheduled 300 patients (28.7%). Change in eGFR between baseline and 12 months was 4.3 ± 15.4 ml/min/1.73 m2 (stent group) and 3.0 ± 14.9 ml/min/1.73 m2 (BMT group), p > 0.999. Clinical event rates were low with a 12-month composite of cardiac death, stroke, myocardial infarction, and hospitalization for congestive heart failure of 2.9% in the stent and 5.3% in the BMT group, p = 0.526, and a 3-year composite of 14.8% and 12.0%, p = 0.982. At 3 years, target vessel (re-)vascularization occurred in one patient (3.0%) in the stent group and in 8 patients (29.4%) in the BMT group. In RADAR, outcomes of renal artery stenting were similar to BMT. These results have to be interpreted with the caveat that the study did not reach its statistically based sample size. Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00640406. Registered on 17 March 2008.