Despite higher mortality and complication rate in ACS group observed in postprocedural period, we found no significant difference in 1-year outcomes in comparison to elective patients. Procedural success of RA in ACS patients is similar to elective patients with SA and this procedure should be considered in case of urgent indications, if no other options of treatment exist.

Background: Whereas the efficacy and safety of intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) have been confirmed in de novo calcified coronary lesions, little is known about its utility in treating stent underexpansion. This study aimed to investigate the impact of IVL in treating stent underexpansion. Methods and Results: Consecutive patients with stent underexpansion treated with IVL entered the multicenter IVL-Dragon Registry. The procedural success (primary efficacy endpoint) was defined as a relative stent expansion >80%. Thirty days device-oriented composite endpoint (DOCE) (defined as a composite of cardiac death, target lesion revascularization, or target vessel myocardial infarction) was the secondary endpoint. A total of 62 patients were enrolled. The primary efficacy endpoint was achieved in 72.6% of patients. Both stent underexpansion 58.5% (47.5–69.7) vs. 11.4% (5.8–20.7), p < 0.001, and the stenotic area 82.6% (72.4–90.8) vs. 21.5% (11.1–37.2), p < 0.001, measured by quantitative coronary angiography improved significantly after IVL. Intravascular imaging confirmed increased stent expansion following IVL from 37.5% (16.0–66.0) to 86.0% (69.2–90.7), p < 0.001, by optical coherence tomography and from 57.0% (31.5–77.2) to 89.0% (85.0–92.0), p = 0.002, by intravascular ultrasound. Secondary endpoint occurred in one (1.6%) patient caused by cardiac death. There was no target lesion revascularization or target vessel myocardial infarction during the 30-day follow-up. Conclusions: In this real-life, largest-to-date analysis of IVL use to manage underexpanded stent, IVL proved to be an effective and safe method for facilitating stent expansion and increasing luminal gain.

A b s t r a c t Background:To assess the influence of severe target lesion calcification (TLC) on the outcomes of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) due to acute myocardial infarction (AMI).Aim: Contemporary data concerning coronary artery calcifications (CAC) are based on pooled analyses from randomised trials with short follow-up. We still lack the knowledge on how CAC in target lesions affect long-term prognosis of patients with AMI in everyday practice. Methods:We evaluated clinical and laboratory data of 206 consecutive patients who underwent coronary angiography and PCI due to AMI. Primary endpoints were all-cause death and recurrent hospitalisations due to acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Results:Severe TLC lesions were present in 17% of patients. These patients were older (71 vs. 65 years, p = 0.02) and more often diagnosed with non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (77% vs. 58%, p = 0.03). Patients with severe TLC had lower rates of PCI success (80% vs. 97%, p < 0.0001) and less often achieved full revascularisation during index procedure (14% vs. 41%, p = 0.003). During 30 months follow-up patients with severe TLC more often suffered from another ACS (37% vs. 13%, p = 0.0005) and had higher all-cause mortality (31% vs. 16%, p = 0.04). Multivariate Cox regression model showed severe TLC to be an independent predictor of another ACS (HR 2.8; 95% CI 1.4-5.6; p = 0.004). Conclusions:Severe TLC are not uncommon in patients with ACS. The presence of severe TLC is a prognostic factor of another ACS in AMI patients undergoing PCI.

Background: Data regarding the use of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting balloons (DEB) versus thin-strut drug-eluting stents (thin-DES) for treating DES in-stent restenosis in everyday clinical practice is scarce. Our goal was to evaluate the efficacy and safety profile of DEB versus thin-DES in DES in-stent restenosis. Methods: Consecutive patients with DES in-stent restenosis who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention between 2008 and 2019 entered the multicenter DEB-DRAGON Registry with a follow-up of 3 years. Patients who received DEB at the index procedure (n=557, 49.9%) were compared with those who received thin-DES (n=560, 50.1%). Results: Analysis of the unmatched cohort revealed lower rates of target lesion revascularization (9.1% versus 13.6%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.58 [95% CI, 0.41–0.83], P =0.003), target vessel revascularization (11.8% versus 16.7%; HR, 0.62 [95% CI, 0.45–0.84], P =0.003) and device-oriented composite end point, defined as a composite of cardiac death, target lesion revascularization, and target vessel myocardial infarction (12.7% versus 16.0%; HR, 0.69 [95% CI, 0.50–0.94], P =0.018) in the thin-DES group compared with the DEB group. The incidence of cardiac death, target vessel-myocardial infarction, and myocardial infarction were similar in both groups. However, after propensity score matching, there were no significant differences in target lesion revascularization (11.2% versus 11.2%; HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.55–1.51], P =0.707), target vessel revascularization (13.4% versus 14.2%; HR, 0.86 [95% CI, 0.55–1.36], P =0.523), and device-oriented composite end point (14.2% versus 14.2%; HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.58–1.42], P =0.667) between the thin-DES and DEB group, respectively. Conclusions: This analysis of a real-life registry revealed similar long-term outcomes of thin-DES and DEB in DES in-stent restenosis regarding target lesion revascularization, myocardial infarction, cardiac death, and device-oriented composite end point. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04415216.

Background Data regarding the clinical outcomes of covered stents (CSs) used to seal coronary artery perforations (CAPs) in the all-comer population are scarce. The aim of the CRACK Registry was to evaluate the procedural, 30-days and 1-year outcomes after CAP treated by CS implantation. Methods This multicenter all-comer registry included data of consecutive patients with CAP treated by CS implantation. The primary endpoint was the composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), defined as cardiac death, target lesion revascularization (TLR), and myocardial infarction (MI). Results The registry included 119 patients (mean age: 68.9 ± 9.7 years, 55.5% men). Acute coronary syndrome, including: unstable angina 21 (17.6%), NSTEMI 26 (21.8%), and STEMI 26 (21.8%), was the presenting diagnosis in 61.3%, and chronic coronary syndromes in 38.7% of patients. The most common lesion type, according to ACC/AHA classification, was type C lesion in 47 (39.5%) of cases. A total of 52 patients (43.7%) had type 3 Ellis classification, 28 patients (23.5%) had type 2 followed by 39 patients (32.8%) with type 1 perforation. Complex PCI was performed in 73 (61.3%) of patients. Periprocedural death occurred in eight patients (6.7%), of which two patients had emergency cardiac surgery. Those patients were excluded from the one-year analysis. Successful sealing of the perforation was achieved in 99 (83.2%) patients. During the follow-up, 26 (26.2%) patients experienced MACE [7 (7.1%) cardiac deaths, 13 (13.1%) TLR, 11 (11.0%) MIs]. Stent thrombosis (ST) occurred in 6 (6.1%) patients [4(4.0%) acute ST, 1(1.0%) subacute ST and 1(1.0%) late ST]. Conclusions The use of covered stents is an effective treatment of CAP. The procedural and 1-year outcomes of CAP treated by CS implantation showed that such patients should remain under follow-up due to relatively high risk of MACE.