12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Recent advances in percutaneous coronary intervention

      ,
      Heart
      BMJ

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) continues to advance at pace with an ever-broadening indication. In this article we will review the recent technological advances in PCI that have enabled more complex coronary disease to be treated. The choice of revascularisation strategy must take into account the evidence—just because we can treat by PCI does not necessarily mean we should. When PCI is indicated, a safe, precision PCI approach guided by physiology, imaging and optimal lesion preparation should be the goal to obtain complete revascularisation and a durable long-term result. When these standards are adhered to, the outcomes can be excellent, in even complex coronary disease. We provide contemporary trial evidence to justify PCI and treatment algorithms that ensure optimal revascularisation decision making to achieve the best patient outcomes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references33

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Ticagrelor with or without Aspirin in High-Risk Patients after PCI

          Monotherapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor after a minimum period of dual antiplatelet therapy is an emerging approach to reduce the risk of bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found

            Use of the Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio or Fractional Flow Reserve in PCI

            Coronary revascularization guided by fractional flow reserve (FFR) is associated with better patient outcomes after the procedure than revascularization guided by angiography alone. It is unknown whether the instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), an alternative measure that does not require the administration of adenosine, will offer benefits similar to those of FFR.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Anatomical and clinical characteristics to guide decision making between coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention for individual patients: development and validation of SYNTAX score II.

              The anatomical SYNTAX score is advocated in European and US guidelines as an instrument to help clinicians decide the optimum revascularisation method in patients with complex coronary artery disease. The absence of an individualised approach and of clinical variables to guide decision making between coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are limitations of the SYNTAX score. SYNTAX score II aimed to overcome these limitations. SYNTAX score II was developed by applying a Cox proportional hazards model to results of the randomised all comers SYNTAX trial (n=1800). Baseline features with strong associations to 4-year mortality in either the CABG or the PCI settings (interactions), or in both (predictive accuracy), were added to the anatomical SYNTAX score. Comparisons of 4-year mortality predictions between CABG and PCI were made for each patient. Discriminatory performance was quantified by concordance statistics and internally validated with bootstrap resampling. External validation was done in the multinational all comers DELTA registry (n=2891), a heterogeneous population that included patients with three-vessel disease (26%) or complex coronary artery disease (anatomical SYNTAX score ≥33, 30%) who underwent CABG or PCI. The SYNTAX trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00114972. SYNTAX score II contained eight predictors: anatomical SYNTAX score, age, creatinine clearance, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), presence of unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease, peripheral vascular disease, female sex, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). SYNTAX score II significantly predicted a difference in 4-year mortality between patients undergoing CABG and those undergoing PCI (p(interaction) 0·0037). To achieve similar 4-year mortality after CABG or PCI, younger patients, women, and patients with reduced LVEF required lower anatomical SYNTAX scores, whereas older patients, patients with ULMCA disease, and those with COPD, required higher anatomical SYNTAX scores. Presence of diabetes was not important for decision making between CABG and PCI (p(interaction) 0·67). SYNTAX score II discriminated well in all patients who underwent CABG or PCI, with concordance indices for internal (SYNTAX trial) validation of 0·725 and for external (DELTA registry) validation of 0·716, which were substantially higher than for the anatomical SYNTAX score alone (concordance indices of 0·567 and 0·612, respectively). A nomogram was constructed that allowed for an accurate individualised prediction of 4-year mortality in patients proposing to undergo CABG or PCI. Long-term (4-year) mortality in patients with complex coronary artery disease can be well predicted by a combination of anatomical and clinical factors in SYNTAX score II. SYNTAX score II can better guide decision making between CABG and PCI than the original anatomical SYNTAX score. Boston Scientific Corporation. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Heart
                Heart
                BMJ
                1355-6037
                1468-201X
                June 10 2020
                : heartjnl-2019-315707
                Article
                10.1136/heartjnl-2019-315707
                32522821
                cf6d463a-ec64-4c3d-ae40-e36cb954e10c
                © 2020
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article