Comparison of Outcomes of Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention between Complex and High-Risk Intervention in Indicated Patients (CHIP) versus Non-CHIP

Halftime rotational atherectomy: a unique concept for diffuse long severely calcified lesions

Rotational atherectomy (RA) is technically more difficult in a diffuse calcified lesion than in a focal calcified lesion. We hypothesized that taking a halftime can be another option for RA to the diffuse calcified lesions. Halftime was defined as at least one long break during RA, in which an operator pulled out the Rotablator system from the guide catheter before crossing the lesion. This study aimed to compare the complications between RA with and without halftime. We included 177 diffuse long severely calcified lesions (lesion lengths ≥ 30 mm) that required RA, and divided those lesions into a halftime group (n = 29) and a no-halftime group (n = 148). The primary outcome was periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI). The reference diameter was smaller in the halftime group than in the no-halftime group [1.82 (1.70-2.06) mm versus 2.17 (1.89-2.59) mm, p = 0.002]. The total run time was longer in the halftime group than in the non-halftime group [133.0 (102.0-223.0) seconds versus 71.5 (42.0-108.0) seconds, p < 0.001]. Although creatinine kinase (CK) and CK-myocardial band (MB) was significantly higher in the halftime group than in the no-halftime group [CK: 156 (97-308) U/L versus 99 (59-216) U/L, p = 0.021; CK-MB: 15 (8-24) U/L versus 5 (3-15) U/L, p < 0.001], periprocedural MI was not observed in the halftime group. In conclusion, periprocedural MI was not observed in RA with halftime. This preliminary study suggests that halftime RA may be a safe option for diffuse severely calcified lesions.

Clinical Outcomes and Prognostic Factors in Complex, High-Risk Indicated Procedure (CHIP) and High-Bleeding-Risk (HBR) Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Sirolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation: 4-Year Results

We aimed to characterize the performance and safety of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in complex, high-risk indicated procedure (CHIP) and high-bleeding-risk (HBR) patients at a 4-year follow up. We included all consecutive patients who underwent PCI with the sirolimus-eluting coronary stent Alex Plus (Balton, Poland) between July 2015 and March 2016. We analyzed various baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, laboratory data, and clinical outcomes. We enrolled 232 patients in whom 282 stents were implanted, including 81 patients meeting the CHIP criteria and 76 patients meeting the HBR criteria. In the whole population, the mean age was 68 ± 11 years, and 23.7% were females. Most procedures were performed from radial access (83.2%) using a 6F guiding catheter (95.7%). The lesions were mostly predilated (61.6%), and postdilatation was performed in 37.9%. The device success was 99.6% (in one case, a second stent was required due to heavy calcifications). Additional stents were deployed in 39% of cases due to edge dissection (6.9%), side branch stenting (5.2%), or diffuse disease (26.9%). Myocardial infarction (MI) type 4a was revealed in 2.2% of cases. At 4 years, the MACE rates for the whole population and for CHIP and HBR patients were 23.3%, 29.6%, and 27.6%, respectively. CHIP patients had a higher risk of MACEs (29.6% vs. 19.9%, HR 1.69, p = 0.032) and cardiac death (11.1% vs. 4.6%, HR 2.50, p = 0.048). There were no differences for MI (7.4% vs. 6.6%, p = 0.826) and TLR (18.5% vs. 12.6%, p = 0.150). HBR patients were also characterized by a higher risk of MACEs (27.6% vs. 21.2%, HR 1.84, p = 0.049) and cardiac death (17.1% vs. 1.9%, HR 9.61, p < 0.001). There were no differences for MI (7.9% vs. 6.4%, p = 0.669) and TLR (11.8% vs. 16.0%, p = 0.991). PCI in CHIP and HBR patients is feasible with a low rate of periprocedural complications. Nevertheless, CHIP and HBR patients are at a high risk of future adverse events and require strict surveillance to improve outcomes.

Comparison of Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Between Complex and High-risk Intervention in Indicated Patients (CHIP) versus Non-CHIP

Recently, there has been a growing interest in complex and high-risk intervention in indicated patients (CHIP) in the contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). CHIP is composed of the following 3 factors: (1) patient factors, (2) complicated heart disease, and (3) complex PCI. However, there are few studies that investigated the long-term outcomes of CHIP-PCI. The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of long-term major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) among the definite CHIP, possible CHIP, and non-CHIP groups in complex PCI. We included 961 patients and divided them into the definite CHIP (n = 129), the possible CHIP (n = 369), and the non-CHIP groups (n = 463). During the median follow-up duration of 573 days (quartile 1:226 days to quartile 3:1,165 days), a total of 189 MACE were observed. The incidence of MACE was highest in the definite CHIP group, followed by the possible CHIP group, and lowest in the non-CHIP group (p = 0.001). Definite CHIP (vs non-CHIP: odds ratio 3.558, 95% confidence interval 2.249 to 5.629, p <0.001) and possible CHIP (vs non-CHIP: odds ratio 2.260, 95% confidence interval 1.563 to 3.266, p <0.001) were significantly associated with MACE after controlling for confounding factors. Among CHIP factors, active malignancy, pulmonary disease, hemodialysis, unstable hemodynamics, left ventricular ejection fraction, and valvular disease were significantly associated with MACE. In conclusion, the incidence of MACE in complex PCI was highest in the definite CHIP group, followed by the possible CHIP group, and lowest in the non-CHIP group. The concept of CHIP should be recognized to predict the long-term MACE in patients who undergo complex PCI.