Effect of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol on the geometry of coronary bifurcation lesions and clinical outcomes of coronary interventions in the J-REVERSE registry

Impact of coronary bifurcation angle on the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis and clinical outcome of coronary bifurcation intervention-A scoping review

BACKGROUND

A coronary bifurcation stenting is still a challenging issue due to frequent restenosis and stent thrombosis even with drug-eluting stents. The bifurcation angle (BA) between a main vessel and a side branch is one of the crucial determinants of coronary flow and shear stress that affect the plaque distribution. Previous bench and clinical studies have evaluated the impact of the BA between the proximal main vessel and the side branch (Angle A) and the BA between the distal main vessel and the side branch (Angle B) on the clinical outcomes of bifurcation stenting. However, the impact has not yet been fully elucidated due to a lack of statistical power or different manner of the assessment of BA.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the published studies on coronary artery BA, the modalities used for assessment, and the impact of BA on interventions and attempt to define the pre-procedural protocols.

DATA SOURCES

A scoping review was performed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Methodology. A total of 52 relevant references were selected from PubMed, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL databases and categorized into three topic areas.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

A wider Angle A is associated with the increased likelihood of carina shift and a wider Angle B, with that of side branch occlusion. A wider Angle B promotes stent malapposition and deformation in the side branch ostium and has been reported as an independent predictor of major adverse cardiac events after bifurcation stenting; however, improvement of the drug-eluting stent, refinement of the stenting technique, and accurate 3-dimensional assessment may attenuate the adverse clinical impact of a wider BA.

IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

Assessment of the BA is necessary to predict the effect of bifurcation intervention procedure on the stent configuration and coronary flow at the bifurcated vessels. This will help to optimize stent selection and the stenting technique.

Pooled prevalence of three major cardiovascular risk factors in patients undergoing left main bifurcation stenting: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prevalence of the major risk factors in patients with Left Main (LM) bifurcation disease has not been yet clearly assessed, although it would important for building up bifurcation computational models. We perform a systematic review and metaanalysis on the three major cardiovascular risk factors in patients treated for LM bifurcation disease using either single or 2-stent strategy.

MEHTODS

In accordance with the PRISMA guidelines, Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed and Google Scholar were queried to locate articles published between January 2015 to October 2020, comparing single- versus 2-stent strategy and reporting the prevalence of arterial hypertension (HT), hyperlipidaemia (HyperL) and diabetes mellitus (DM).

RESULTS

Out of a total of 230 articles, 7 articles were included into the final analysis. A total of 4559 patients were enrolled: 2666 (58.4%, mean age 60.4 years, 2318 males) and 1933 patients (42.3%, mean age 64.8 years, 1763 males) received a single- and 2-stent stenting strategies, respectively. A random effect model revealed a pooled prevalence of HT, HyperL and DM in 69.4%, 38.9% and in 31% of cases, respectively. Prevalence of HT was lower in patients treated with single versus 2-stent strategy (63 versus 66.7% of patients, p=0.01) while HyperL and DM were more represented in single versus 2-stent strategy: 41.6 versus 34.1% (p<0.001), and 32.5 versus 31.8% of patients (p=0.61), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with LM bifurcation disease undergoing either single or 2- stent strategy, HT, HyperL and DM are frequent comorbidities. In severe LM disease requiring 2-stent technique, HT is the most prevalent risk factor.

Diabetes mellitus and other cardiovascular risk factors in lower-extremity peripheral artery disease versus coronary artery disease: an analysis of 1,121,359 cases from the nationwide databases

BACKGROUND

Lower-extremity peripheral artery disease (LE-PAD) and coronary artery disease (CAD) are both pathologically rooted in atherosclerosis, and their shared clinical features regarding the exposure to cardiovascular risk factors have been emphasized. However, comparative data of the two cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) were so far lacking. The purpose of this study was to directly compare the clinical profile between cases undergoing endovascular therapy (EVT) for LE-PAD and those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

Data were extracted from the nationwide procedural databases of EVT and PCI in Japan (J-EVT and J-PCI) between 2012 and 2017. A total of 1,121,359 cases (103,887 EVT cases for critical limb ischemia [CLI] or intermittent claudication and 1,017,472 PCI cases for acute coronary syndrome [ACS] or stable angina) were analyzed. Heterogeneity in clinical profile between CVDs was evaluated using the C statistic of the logistic regression model for which dependent variable was one CVD versus another, and explanatory variables were clinical profile. When two CVDs were completely discriminated from each other by the developed model, the C statistic (discrimination ability) of the model would be equal to 1, indicating that the two CVDs were completely different in clinical profile. On the other hand, when two CVDs were identical in clinical profile, the developed model would not discriminate them at all, with the C statistic equal to 0.5.

RESULTS

Mean age was 73.5 ± 9.3 years in LE-PAD patients versus 70.0 ± 11.2 years in CAD patients (P < 0.001). The prevalence of diabetes mellitus and end-stage renal disease was 1.96- and 6.39-times higher in LE-PAD patients than in CAD patients (both P < 0.001). The higher prevalence was observed irrespective of age group. The exposure to other cardiovascular risk factors and the likelihood of cardiovascular risk clustering also varied between the diseases. The between-disease heterogeneity in patient profile was particularly evident between CLI and ACS, with the C statistic equal to 0.833 (95% CI 0.831-0.836).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study, an analysis based on nationwide procedural databases, confirmed that patient profiles were not identical but rather considerably different between clinically significant LE-PAD and CAD warranting revascularization.