RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: This study is aimed at investigating the changes in serum CypC levels and their relationship with cardiovascular events at 12 months of follow-up in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients. METHODS: The study included a total of 125 subjects (40 patients with acute CAD, 40 patients with chronic CAD, and 45 control volunteers) and we analyzed plasma CypC levels from baseline to 6 and 12 months for a better understanding of its behavior in atherosclerosis. RESULTS: Serum CypC levels were shown to be gradually increased in CAD patients (30.63 pg/mL ± 3.77 at baseline, 38.70 pg/mL ± 6.41 at 6 months [p = 0.25], and 47.27 pg/mL ± 5.65 at 12 months [p = 0.007]). In addition, serum CypC levels during the follow-up were a significant predictor of CAD (c-statistic 0.76 at 6 months and 0.89 at 12 months; p < 0.001). Despite it, there was no significant association between CypC and cardiovascular events, but serum CypC levels tended to be higher in patients suffering cardiovascular events during the follow-up (29.02 pg/mL ± 6.39 vs. 79.96 pg/mL ± 22.18; p = 0.029). In this regard, plasma levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) > 2.3 mg/L plus NT-proBNP > 300 pg/mL together were significant predictors of cardiovascular events during the follow-up in CAD patients with CypC levels >17.5 pg/mL (p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, our results suggest that serum CypC levels increase during the follow-up in CAD patients and could be a novel biomarker with a possible prognostic value in combination with hsCRP and NT-proBNP.
OBJETIVO: Este estudio tiene como objetivo investigar los cambios en los niveles séricos de CypC y su relación con eventos cardiovasculares a los 12 meses de seguimiento en pacientes con EAC. MÉTODO: El estudio incluyó un total de 125 sujetos (40 pacientes con EAC aguda, 40 pacientes con EAC crónica y 45 voluntarios de control) y se analizaron los niveles plasmáticos de CypC desde el inicio hasta los 6 y 12 meses para comprender mejor su comportamiento en la aterosclerosis. RESULTADOS: Se demostró que los niveles séricos de CypC aumentaron gradualmente en pacientes con CAD [(30.63 pg/ml ± 3.77 al inicio del estudio, 38.70 pg/ml ± 6.41 a los 6 meses (p = 0.25) y 47.27 pg/ml ± 5.65 a los 12 meses (p = 0,007)]. Además, los niveles séricos de CypC durante el seguimiento fueron un predictor significativo de EAC (estadístico c 0.76 a los 6 meses y 0.89 a los 12 meses; p < 0.001). A pesar de ello, no hubo asociación significativa entre CypC y eventos cardiovasculares, pero los niveles séricos de CypC tendieron a ser más altos en los pacientes que sufrieron eventos cardiovasculares durante el seguimiento (29.02 pg/mL ± 6.39 vs. 79.96 pg/mL ± 22.18; p = 0.029). En este sentido, los niveles plasmáticos de hsCRP > 2.3 mg/L más NT-proBNP> 300 pg/ml juntos fueron predictores significativos de eventos cardiovasculares durante el seguimiento en pacientes con EAC con niveles de CypC > 17.5 pg/ml (p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONES: Tomados en conjunto, nuestros resultados sugieren que los niveles séricos de CypC aumentan durante el seguimiento en pacientes con EAC y podría ser un nuevo biomarcador con un posible valor pronóstico en combinación con hsCRP y NT-proBNP.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria , Biomarcadores , Proteína C-Reactiva/análisis , Proteína C-Reactiva/metabolismo , Ciclofilina C , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Fragmentos de Péptidos , Pronóstico , Medición de Riesgo/métodos , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Clinical evidence on the bioresorbable magnesium scaffolds (BRS) is still scarce. We aim to assess clinical outcomes after magnesium BRS deployment in a real-world cohort of patients. METHODS: We included in a non-randomized, prospective, single-center registry of all patients treated with at least one Magmaris device in our cath lab. Pre and postdilatation with optical coherence tomography guidance, as part of the 4Ps strategy, were performed in all cases. The primary endpoint was target lesion failure (TLF) at 12 months. RESULTS: 42 patients (with 42 lesions) underwent Magmaris percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) between June 2016 to April 2017. PCI was performed in an acute setting in 54.76% cases; the most treated vessel was the anterior descending artery, with a mean diameter of 3.30±0.25 mm. All lesions underwent predilatation and postdilatation, with a mean postdilatation pressure of 19.2 atm. Procedural success rate was 100%. TLF rate was 4.7% at 12 months. None of our patients died or suffered myocardial infarction. Two patients (4.7%) underwent clinically-driven target lesion revascularization due to in-stent restenosis. No stent thrombosis was detected. CONCLUSION: 12-months clinical outcomes after Magmaris PCI demonstrate its safety and feasibility when deployed in a 4Ps strategy.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea , Implantes Absorbibles , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/cirugía , Humanos , Estudios Prospectivos , Sistema de RegistrosRESUMEN
Abstract Background: Different mechanical properties have been suggested for metallic bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) in comparison to polymeric BVS. We aim to evaluate the acute mechanical performance of Magmaris® scaffold in comparison to Absorb®. Materials and Methods: Two groups of 10 coronary lesions treated with Magmaris® and Absorb® 1.1 (20584 vs. 21016 struts) were compared. In all cases, optical coherence tomographic (OCT) images were acquired after scaffold deployment. Baseline clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics were compared, including OCT evaluations. Results: No baseline clinical or angiographic significant differences were found between groups. The most common indication for revascularization was effort angina (60% vs. 70% p = 0.45) with no ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI) cases. Main target artery was left anterior descending, with a mean vessel diameter of 3.46 ± 0.23 in Absorb® and 3.52 ± 0.19mm in Magmaris® groups (p = 0.56). All cases underwent pre- and post-dilatation with a procedural success rate of 100%. OCT analyses showed larger scaffold and vessel diameters in Magmaris® group: 3.11 ± 0.38 mm versus 3.07 ± 0.36 mm, p = 0.03 and 4.12 ± 0.51 mm versus 4.04 ± 0.46 mm, p = 0.04. Despite the application of slightly higher postdilatation pressures to Magmaris® devices (18.01 ± 2.15 vs. 17.20 ± 3.80 atm, p = 0.05), significantly lower percentages of disrupted and malapposed struts were identified within Magmaris® scaffolds (0.15% vs. 0.27%, p = 0.03 and 1.06% vs. 1.46% p = 0.01). No cardiac death, target vessel-related MI, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization was reported in a 30-day follow-up. Conclusion: Mechanical properties of Magmaris® scaffold allow achieving larger vessel and scaffold diameters in a safe manner, with lower rates of malapposition and scaffold disruption.
Resumen Introducción: Se ha sugerido la presencia de un distinto comportamiento mecánico entre los dos grupos principales de dispositivos bioresorbibles: metálicos y poliméricos. En este estudio evaluamos el comportamiento mecánico agudo del andamiaje bioresorbible metálico Magmaris® frente al del polimérico Absorb®. Métodos: Se compararon dos grupos de 10 lesiones coronarias tratadas con Magmaris® y Absorb® 1.1 (20584 vs. 21016 struts). En todos los casos se realizó estudio postimplante del dispositivo mediante tomografia de coherencia óptica (OCT). Se compararon las características basales clínicas y angiográficas, así como aspectos del procedimiento (incluídos los estudios de OCT) entre ambos grupos. Resultados: No se encontraron diferencias clínicas o angiográficas estadísticamente significativas entre ambos grupos. La indicación más frecuente de revascularización coronaria fué la presencia de angina de esfuerzo (60% vs. 70% p = 0.45), sin incluirse casos de IAMCEST. La arteria descendente anterior fué el principal vaso diana, con un diámetro medio de 3.46 ± 0.23 mm en el grupo de Absorb® y de 3.52 ± 0.19mm en el grupo de Magmaris® (p = 0.56). En todos los casos se realizó pre y postdilatación, con una tasa de éxito del procedimiento del 100%. Los estudios mediante OCT demostraron un mayor diámetro de stent y del vaso en el grupo de Magmaris®: 3.11 ± 0.38mm versus 3.07 ± 0.36 mm, p = 0.03 y 4.12 ± 0.51mm versus 4.04 ± 0.46mm, p = 0.04. A pesar de someter a los dispositivos Magmaris® a presiones de postdilatación ligeramente superiores (18.01 ± 2.15 vs. 17.20 ± 3.80 atm, p = 0.05), se identificó un menor porcentaje estadísticamente significativo de struts rotos o malapuestos en dicho grupo (0.15% vs. 0.27 %, p = 0.03 y 1.06 % vs. 1.46% p = 0.01). En un seguimiento a 30 días no se registraron eventos mayores: muerte cardíaca, IM relacionado con vaso diana o TLR. Conclusión: Las propiedades mecánicas del scaffold metálico bioresorbible Magmaris® permiten alcanzar mayores diámetros de stent y vaso de forma segura tras su implante, con una baja tasa de malaposición y disrupción.
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/cirugía , Implantes Absorbibles , Andamios del Tejido , Stents Liberadores de Fármacos , Poliésteres/química , Diseño de Prótesis , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/diagnóstico por imagen , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del Tratamiento , Angiografía Coronaria , Tomografía de Coherencia Óptica , Magnesio/químicaRESUMEN
Background: Different mechanical properties have been suggested for metallic bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) in comparison to polymeric BVS. We aim to evaluate the acute mechanical performance of Magmaris® scaffold in comparison to Absorb®. Materials and Methods: Two groups of 10 coronary lesions treated with Magmaris® and Absorb® 1.1 (20584 vs. 21016 struts) were compared. In all cases, optical coherence tomographic (OCT) images were acquired after scaffold deployment. Baseline clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics were compared, including OCT evaluations. Results: No baseline clinical or angiographic significant differences were found between groups. The most common indication for revascularization was effort angina (60% vs. 70% p = 0.45) with no ST-elevation myocardial infarction (MI) cases. Main target artery was left anterior descending, with a mean vessel diameter of 3.46 ± 0.23 in Absorb® and 3.52 ± 0.19mm in Magmaris® groups (p = 0.56). All cases underwent pre- and post-dilatation with a procedural success rate of 100%. OCT analyses showed larger scaffold and vessel diameters in Magmaris® group: 3.11 ± 0.38 mm versus 3.07 ± 0.36 mm, p = 0.03 and 4.12 ± 0.51 mm versus 4.04 ± 0.46 mm, p = 0.04. Despite the application of slightly higher postdilatation pressures to Magmaris® devices (18.01 ± 2.15 vs. 17.20 ± 3.80 atm, p = 0.05), significantly lower percentages of disrupted and malapposed struts were identified within Magmaris® scaffolds (0.15% vs. 0.27%, p = 0.03 and 1.06% vs. 1.46% p = 0.01). No cardiac death, target vessel-related MI, or clinically driven target lesion revascularization was reported in a 30-day follow-up. Conclusion: Mechanical properties of Magmaris® scaffold allow achieving larger vessel and scaffold diameters in a safe manner, with lower rates of malapposition and scaffold disruption.
Introducción: Se ha sugerido la presencia de un distinto comportamiento mecánico entre los dos grupos principales de dispositivos bioresorbibles: metálicos y poliméricos. En este estudio evaluamos el comportamiento mecánico agudo del andamiaje bioresorbible metálico Magmaris® frente al del polimérico Absorb®. Métodos: Se compararon dos grupos de 10 lesiones coronarias tratadas con Magmaris® y Absorb® 1.1 (20584 vs. 21016 struts). En todos los casos se realizó estudio postimplante del dispositivo mediante tomografia de coherencia óptica (OCT). Se compararon las características basales clínicas y angiográficas, así como aspectos del procedimiento (incluídos los estudios de OCT) entre ambos grupos. Resultados: No se encontraron diferencias clínicas o angiográficas estadísticamente significativas entre ambos grupos. La indicación más frecuente de revascularización coronaria fué la presencia de angina de esfuerzo (60% vs. 70% p = 0.45), sin incluirse casos de IAMCEST. La arteria descendente anterior fué el principal vaso diana, con un diámetro medio de 3.46 ± 0.23 mm en el grupo de Absorb® y de 3.52 ± 0.19mm en el grupo de Magmaris® (p = 0.56). En todos los casos se realizó pre y postdilatación, con una tasa de éxito del procedimiento del 100%. Los estudios mediante OCT demostraron un mayor diámetro de stent y del vaso en el grupo de Magmaris®: 3.11 ± 0.38mm versus 3.07 ± 0.36 mm, p = 0.03 y 4.12 ± 0.51mm versus 4.04 ± 0.46mm, p = 0.04. A pesar de someter a los dispositivos Magmaris® a presiones de postdilatación ligeramente superiores (18.01 ± 2.15 vs. 17.20 ± 3.80 atm, p = 0.05), se identificó un menor porcentaje estadísticamente significativo de struts rotos o malapuestos en dicho grupo (0.15% vs. 0.27 %, p = 0.03 y 1.06 % vs. 1.46% p = 0.01). En un seguimiento a 30 días no se registraron eventos mayores: muerte cardíaca, IM relacionado con vaso diana o TLR. Conclusión: Las propiedades mecánicas del scaffold metálico bioresorbible Magmaris® permiten alcanzar mayores diámetros de stent y vaso de forma segura tras su implante, con una baja tasa de malaposición y disrupción.
Asunto(s)
Implantes Absorbibles , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/cirugía , Stents Liberadores de Fármacos , Andamios del Tejido , Anciano , Angiografía Coronaria , Enfermedad de la Arteria Coronaria/diagnóstico por imagen , Femenino , Humanos , Magnesio/química , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Poliésteres/química , Diseño de Prótesis , Estudios Retrospectivos , Tomografía de Coherencia Óptica , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To determine security and benefits of high pressure postdilatation (HPP) of bioresorbable vascular scaffolds (BVS) in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of complex lesions whatever its indication is. BACKGROUND: Acute scaffold disruption has been proposed as the main limitation of BVS when they are overexpanded. However, clinical implications of this disarray are not yet clear and more evidence is needed. METHODS: A total of 25 BVS were deployed during PCI of 14 complex lesions after mandatory predilatation. In all cases HPP was performed with NC balloon in a 1:1 relation to the artery. After that, optical coherence tomography (OCT) analyses were performed. RESULTS: Mean and maximal postdilatation pressure were 17±3.80 and 20 atmospheres (atm) respectively. Postdilatation balloon/scaffold diameter ratio was 1.01. A total of 39,590 struts were analyzed. Mean, minimal and maximal scaffold diameter were respectively: 3.09±0.34mm, 2.88±0.31mm and 3.31±0.40mm. Mean eccentricity index was 0.13±0.05. ISA percentage was 1.42% with a total of 564 malapposed struts. 89 struts were identified as disrupted, which represents a percentage of disrupted struts of 0.22%. At 30days, none of our patients died, suffered from stroke, stent thrombosis or needed target lesion revascularization (TLR). CONCLUSIONS: NC balloon HPP of BVS at more than 17atm (up to 20atm) is safe during PCI and allows to achieve better angiographic and clinical results.
