Aims The aim of this study was to investigate the prognostic impact of right ventricular (RV) size in patients with chronic heart failure. Methods and results Normal volunteers (n = 80) and patients (n = 380) with left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction 2 SD beyond the mean) (25%) had more frequent evidence of fluid overload in clinical examination and greater LV dimensions (P < 0.0001). During follow‐up (median 45, interquartile range: 28–66 months), 37% of patients with and 24% without RV dilation died (log‐rank test = 8.4; P = 0.004). In a multivariable Cox regression model, including 13 other clinical variables, RV (HR: 1.08/10 mL/m², 95% CI: 1.00–1.18, P = 0.044), but not LV, end‐systolic volume index predicted a worse outcome. Conclusion Twenty‐five per cent of patients with heart failure due to LV systolic dysfunction have a dilated right ventricle. Greater RV dimensions predict mortality in patients with chronic heart failure. Treatments aimed at preserving or enhancing RV structure and function, possibly by unloading the RV by reducing pulmonary vascular resistance or left atrial pressure, should be investigated.

Intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) can be a useful tool during drug-eluting stents (DES) implantation as it allows accurate assessment of lesion severity and optimal treatment planning. However, numerous reports have shown that IVUS guided percutaneous coronary intervention is not associated with improved clinical outcomes, especially in non-complex patients and lesions. We searched the literature in Medline, the Cochrane Library, and other internet sources to identify studies that compare clinical outcomes between IVUS-guided and angiography-guided DES implantation. Random-effects model was used to assess treatment effect. Twenty eligible studies with a total of 29,068 patients were included in this meta-analysis. The use of IVUS was associated with significant reductions in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, odds ratios [OR] 0.77, 95 % confidence intervals [CI] 0.71-0.83, P < 0.001), death (OR 0.62, 95 % CI 0.54-0.71, p < 0.001), and stent thrombosis (OR 0.59, 95 % CI: 0.47-0.73, P < 0.001). The benefit was also seen in the repeated analysis of matched and randomized studies. In stratified analysis, IVUS guidance appeared to be beneficial not only in patients with complex lesions or acute coronary syndromes (ACS) but also patients with mixed lesions or presentations (MACE: OR 0.69, 95 % CI: 0.60-0.79, p < 0.001, OR 0.81, 95 % CI 0.74-0.90, p < 0.001, respectively). By employing meta-regression analysis, the benefit of IVUS is significantly pronounced in patients with complex lesions or ACS with respect to death (p = 0.048). IVUS guidance was associated with improved clinical outcomes, especially in patients with complex lesions admitted with ACS. Large, randomized clinical trials are warranted to identify populations and lesion characteristics where IVUS guidance would be associated with better outcomes.

Advances in stent technology and the design of endovascular devices with thinner struts, anti‐inflammatory and antithrombotic polymers, and better drug kinetics have enhanced the safety and efficacy of the second‐generation drug‐eluting stents and broadened their use in the therapy of high‐risk patients and complex anatomies. However, despite these developments, in‐stent restenosis and stent thrombosis remain the Achilles' heel of percutaneous coronary intervention, with their cumulative incidence reaching up to 10% at 5 years following percutaneous coronary intervention. The treatment of stent failure poses challenges and is associated with a worse prognosis than conventional percutaneous coronary intervention. Several studies have recently highlighted the value of intravascular imaging in identifying causes of stent failure, underscored its role in treatment planning, and registries have shown that its use may be associated with better clinical outcomes. The present review aims to summarize the evidence in the field; it discusses the value of intravascular imaging in identifying the mechanisms of in‐stent restenosis and stent thrombosis in assessing the morphological characteristics of neointima tissue that appears to determine long‐term outcomes in evaluating procedural results, and presents the findings of studies supporting its value in guiding therapy in stent failure.

Numerous advances and innovative therapies have been introduced in interventional cardiology over the recent years, since the first introduction of balloon angioplasty, but bioresorbable scaffold is certainly one of the most exciting and attracting one. Despite the fact that the metallic drug-eluting stents have significantly diminished the re-stenosis ratio, they have considerable limitations including the hypersensitivity reaction to the polymer that can cause local inflammation, the risk of neo-atherosclerotic lesion formation which can lead to late stent failure as well as the fact that they may preclude surgical revascularization and distort vessel physiology. Bioresorbable scaffolds overcome these limitations as they have the ability to dissolve after providing temporary scaffolding which safeguards vessel patency. In this article we review the recent developments in the field and provide an overview of the devices and the evidence that support their efficacy in the treatment of CAD. Currently 3 devices are CE marked and in clinical use. Additional 24 companies are developing these kind of coronary devices. Most frequently used material is PLLA followed by magnesium.

BACKGROUND: Patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting often require invasive coronary angiography (ICA). However, for these patients, the procedure is technically more challenging and has a higher risk of complications. Observational studies suggest that computed tomography cardiac angiography (CTCA) may facilitate ICA in this group, but this has not been tested in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: This study was a single-center, open-label randomized controlled trial assessing the benefit of adjunctive CTCA in patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting referred for ICA. Patients were randomized 1:1 to undergo CTCA before ICA or ICA alone. The co–primary end points were procedural duration of the ICA (defined as the interval between local anesthesia administration for obtaining vascular access and removal of the last catheter), patient satisfaction after ICA using a validated questionnaire, and the incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy. Linear regression was used for procedural duration and patient satisfaction score; contrast-induced nephropathy was analyzed using logistic regression. We applied the Bonferroni correction, with P <0.017 considered significant and 98.33% CIs presented. Secondary end points included incidence of procedural complications and 1-year major adverse cardiac events. RESULTS: Over 3 years, 688 patients were randomized with a median follow-up of 1.0 years. The mean age was 69.8±10.4 years, 108 (15.7%) were women, 402 (58.4%) were White, and there was a high burden of comorbidity (85.3% hypertension and 53.8% diabetes). The median time from coronary artery bypass grafting to angiography was 12.0 years, and there were a median of 3 (interquartile range, 2 to 3) grafts per participant. Procedure duration of the ICA was significantly shorter in the CTCA+ICA group (CTCA+ICA, 18.6±9.5 minutes versus ICA alone, 39.5±16.9 minutes [98.33% CI, −23.5 to −18.4]; P <0.001), alongside improved mean ICA satisfaction scores (1=very good to 5=very poor; −1.1 difference [98.33% CI, −1.2 to −0.9]; P <0.001), and reduced incidence of contrast-induced nephropathy (3.4% versus 27.9%; odds ratio, 0.09 [98.33% CI, 0.04–0.2]; P <0.001). Procedural complications (2.3% versus 10.8%; odds ratio, 0.2 [95% CI, 0.1–0.4]; P <0.001) and 1-year major adverse cardiac events (16.0% versus 29.4%; hazard ratio, 0.4 [95% CI, 0.3–0.6]; P <0.001) were also lower in the CTCA+ICA group. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with previous coronary artery bypass grafting, CTCA before ICA leads to reductions in procedure time and contrast-induced nephropathy, with improved patient satisfaction. CTCA before ICA should be considered in this group of patients. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT03736018.