Impact of two formulas to calculate percentage diameter stenosis of coronary lesions: from stenosis models (phantom lesion model) to actual clinical lesions.

Percentage diameter stenosis (%DS) by angiography is still commonly used to determine luminal obstruction of coronary artery disease (CAD) lesions. While visual estimation of %DS is widespread, because of high inter-operator variability, quantitative coronary arteriography (QCA) analysis is the gold standard. There are two %DS formulas: %DS1 averages the proximal and distal reference vessel diameter (RVD); %DS2 interpolates the RVD. This study aims to evaluate the difference between %DS assessed by QCA in two datasets, phantom lesion models and CAD patients. Ten phantom lesion models (PLMs) and 354 CAD lesions from the FIRST trial were assessed by QCA. In the latter, two scenarios were assessed: Scenario A (worst view), the most common approach in the clinical setting; and Scenario B (average of two complementary views), the standard core-laboratory analysis. In the PLMs, %DS1 and %DS2 mean ± standard deviation (median) was 58.5 ± 21.7 (61.6) and 58.7 ± 21.6 (61.8), respectively, with a signed difference of - 0.2% ± 0.3% (- 0.1%). In Scenario A, the mean %DS1 was 43.8 ± 9.1 (43.3) and 44.0 ± 9.1 (42 .9) in %DS2. In Scenario B, the mean %DS1 was 45.3 ± 8.8 (45.1) and 45.5 ± 9.0 (45.1) in %DS2. The signed difference was - 0.2% ± 2.4% (0.0%) and - 0.2% ± 2.1% (0.0%) in Scenario A and B, respectively. These differences between formulas ranged from - 1.2 to 0.5% for the phantom cases compared to - 17.7% to 7.7% in Scenario A and to - 15.5% to 7.1% in Scenario B. Although the overall means of the formulas provide similar results, significant lesion-level differences are observed. The use of the worst view versus the average of two views provided similar results.

Clinical outcomes of complete revascularization using either angiography-guided or fractional flow reserve-guided drug-eluting stent implantation in non-culprit vessels in ST elevation myocardial infarction patients: insights from a study based on a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Current guidelines recommend that percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) should be restricted to the culprit vessel in ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients with multi-vessel disease (MVD) and without cardiogenic shock. However, newer data suggests that performing complete revascularization (CR) in MVD patients may lead to better outcomes compared to intervention in the culprit vessel only. The aim of this meta-analysis is to examine the available data to determine if CR (using either angio- or fractional flow reserve guidance-FFR) following primary PCI in STEMI patients without cardiogenic shock impacts clinical outcomes. Meta-analysis was performed by conducting a literature search of PubMed from January 2004 to July 2017. Pooled estimates of outcomes, presented as odds ratios (OR) [95% confidence intervals], were generated using random-effect models. A total of 9 studies (3317 patients) were included. CR showed a significant MACE reduction (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.36-0.66, p < 0.001); All-cause mortality (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.48-0.98, p = 0.04) and repeat revascularization (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.28-0.51, p < 0.001) at ≥ 12 months follow-up. The FFR-guiding CR group presented a MACE reduction (odds ratio 0.52, 95% CI 0.30-0.90, p = 0.02) due to a decrease of repeat revascularization (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21-0.80, p = 0.009). Overall, performing complete revascularization in STEMI patients showed a MACE reduction, all-cause death and repeat revascularization. Compared to culprit-only revascularization, treating multi-vessel disease in STEMI patients using FFR guidance is associated with decreased incidence of MACE, due to a decreased rate of revascularization.

Disparities in breast cancer surgery delay: the lingering effect of race.

BACKGROUND: Delays to surgical breast cancer treatment of 90 days or more may be associated with greater stage migration. We investigated racial disparities in time to receiving first surgical treatment in breast cancer patients. METHODS: Insured black (56 %) and white (44 %) women with primary breast cancer completed telephone interviews regarding psychosocial (e.g., self-efficacy) and health care factors (e.g., communication). Clinical data were extracted from medical charts. Time to surgery was measured as the days between diagnosis and definitive surgical treatment. We also examined delays of more than 90 days. Unadjusted hazard ratios (HRs) examined univariate relationships between delay outcomes and covariates. Cox proportional hazard models were used for multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Mean time to surgery was higher in blacks (mean 47 days) than whites (mean 33 days; p = .001). Black women were less likely to receive therapy before 90 days compared to white women after adjustment for covariates (HR .58; 95 % confidence interval .44, .78). Health care process factors were nonsignificant in multivariate models. Women with shorter delay reported Internet use (vs. not) and underwent breast-conserving surgery (vs. mastectomy) (p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged delays to definitive breast cancer surgery persist among black women. Because the 90-day interval has been associated with poorer outcomes, interventions to address delay are needed.