1 / 102

TRI : An Emerging Mini-invasive PCI New Model from for the LM Bifurcation Lesion

TRI : An Emerging Mini-invasive PCI New Model from for the LM Bifurcation Lesion. Yuejin Yang MD, PhD, FACC Cardiovascular Institute and Fu- Wai Hopital, CAMS & PUMC. The 25 th Tian Jin Cardiovascular Circulation (TJCC ) 2011-5-22, T J, China. Contents. Why TRI ?

uttara
Télécharger la présentation

TRI : An Emerging Mini-invasive PCI New Model from for the LM Bifurcation Lesion

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TRI : An Emerging Mini-invasive PCI New Model from for the LM Bifurcation Lesion Yuejin Yang MD, PhD, FACC Cardiovascular Institute and Fu-Wai Hopital, CAMS & PUMC • The 25th Tian Jin Cardiovascular Circulation (TJCC ) 2011-5-22, T J, China

  2. Contents • Why TRI ? • TRI for complex lesions (feasible) ? • TRI for LM bifurcation (feasible) ? • Evolution of LM PCI • Strategic determinations • Technical considerations • Fu-Wai Experience • Warning for LM PCI • Conclusions

  3. The Shortcomings of TFI • Forceful lying on bed： • undurable for patients • high risk of death for induced DVT+PE！ • Complications at puncture site： • bleeding and hemotoma • also high risk of death due to post peritoneal bleeding！ • Occlude device： • cost more

  4. The Advantages of TRI • Free mobile post procedure ： • unpainful and acceptable for patients • no risk of death induced by DVT+PE！ • Less puncture site complications • no big hamotoma and • less risk of hemorhegic death！ • Much less care work needed • Save human resources • No occlude device and short hos. stay: • cost less

  5. The Differences Between TRI vs TFI • Access site: radial vs femoral A • Artery size : smaller vs bigger • Guiding size: 6Fr and under vs 6Fr and beyond • Major differences before guiding engagement, • Almost the same after guiding in place

  6. Feasible Technically • The majority of TFI is routinely performed with 6Fr guiding. • The size of radial artery in the majority of Chinese adults also fits with 6Fr guiding. • TRI is actually as same as TFI with 6Fr guiding. • Routine TRI is as possible as TFI in daily practice with 6Fr guiding.

  7. Numbers of PCI @ Fu Wai Each Year 80.22% in 2007

  8. 6000 5148 4778 5000 4326 3884 3840 PCI 4000 3283 2823 3000 TRI 2034 2000 1000 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 Numbers and Rates of TRI at Fu-Wai Hosptal in 2008 TRI account for 84％(4326/5148)

  9. 2011 PCI at FuWai CV Hosptal • PCI number: 8050 cases • Mortality rate: 0.05% ( 万分之五) • TRI：89.8%（90%） • 2011？Should be more! • In Mar：>1000 cases performed • Expected to reach 10000 cases in 2001 !

  10. Key Skills for Successful TRI • Accurate radial A puncturing for successful cannulation • Gentle catheter forwarding and manipulating to avoid initiating radial A spasm • Unique guiding catheter manipulating for coronary ostium engaging. • Special guiding catheter choosing to get enough backup support

  11. Principles For Guiding Catheter Selection in TRI • RCA :6F-JR4(80%). Amplatz L1 or XB-RCA (20%) • LAD :6F-JFL. EBU-3.5、XB-3.5、Amplatz L1 (>80%) and JL3.5 (20%) • LCX and CTO, long diffuse ,bifurcation, tortuous and angutating lesions (100%) :6F -JFL. EBU-3.5 、XB-3.5、Amplatz L1 • Kissing and crushing technique :6F-Luncher (larger lumen, ID0.071”)guiding catheter

  12. The Dominances in TRI Techniques • Not only simple lesions • But also complex lesions & cases

  13. New Technology Currently Used for Complex Lesions • For CTO: final stronghold antigrade approach retrograde approach • For LM: high risk one-stent techniques two-stent • For bifurcation: complicated One stent technique Two stent technique DK crush Cullotte SKS Provisional T TAP

  14. New Technology for Complex Lesions in TRI • For CTO: anti-grade approach retro-grade approach？ • For LM: one-stent technique two-stent techniques • For bifurcation: one-stent technique two-stent techniques step DK crush step DK inverse crush step cullotte step kissing stent Provisional T TAP

  15. PCI for LM Bifurcation • High risk • Complicated

  16. Evolution of LM PCI • PTCA：No, because of deadly acute closure ！ • BMS: OK, no acute closure, acute/ subacute stent thrombosis also resolved, but high rate of restenosis. • DES: Yes, due to remarkable reduction in restenosis rate.

  17. Dominances of LM PCI in DES Era • Remarkable reduction in restenosis rate (about 5-10%) • Remarkable reduction in revascularization rate (< 10%) • Much improved in stenting techniques one-stent two-stent • IVUS check • Dual antiplatelet therapy regimen

  18. Clinical Evidence: Support of LM PCI • Clinical trial indicative of safty and efficacy DES vs BMS DES vs CABG • Randomized clinical tial DES vs CABG PES （Taxus） : SYNTAX SES（ Sirolimus） : COMBAT • Guidelines: IIb indication

  19. SYNTAX Trial Design 62 EU Sites 23 US Sites All Pts with de novo 3VD and/or LM disease (N=4,337) • Treatment preference (9.4%) • Referring MD or pts. refused informed consent (7.0%) • Inclusion/exclusion (4.7%) • Withdrew before consent (4.3%) • Other (1.8%) • Medical treatment (1.2%) 71% enrolled (N=3,075) + Heart Team (surgeon & interventionalist) Total enrollment N=3075 Amenable for both treatment options Amenable for only one treatment approach Stratification: LM and Diabetes DM 28.2% NonDM 71.8% Stratification: LM and Diabetes DM 28.5% Non DM 71.5% Randomized Arms N=1800 Two Registry Arms N=1275 Randomized Arms n=1800 Two Registry Arms PCI N=198 PCI all captured w/ follow up CABG N=1077 CABG n=1077 CABG 2500 750 w/ f/u CABG n=897 TAXUS n=903 PCI n=198 TAXUS* N=903 vs CABG N=897 no f/u n=428 5yr f/u n=649 vs LM 33.7% 3VD 66.3% LM 34.6% 3VD 65.4%

  20. Adverse Events to 12 Months CVA (Stroke) All Death Myocardial Infarction Revascularization TAXUS* (N=903) CABG (N=897) ITT population Event Rate ± 1.5 SE, *Fisher exact test

  21. Symptomatic Graft Occlusion & Stent Thrombosis to 12 Months TAXUS(N=903) CABG(N=897) P=0.89 Patients (%) 3.4 3.3 n=27 n=28 CABG TAXUS ITT population

  22. Death/CVA/MI to 12 Months TAXUS(N=903) CABG(N=897) 20 10 Cumulative Event Rate (%) 0 0 6 12 Months Since Allocation P=0.98* 7.7% 7.6% Event rate ± 1.5 SE. *Fisher exact test ITT population

  23. MACCE† to 12 Months TAXUS(N=903) CABG(N=897) 20 10 Cumulative Event Rate (%) 0 0 6 12 Months Since Allocation P=0.002* 17.8% 12.1% Event rate ± 1.5 SE. *Fisher exact test †MACCE: Death, CVA, MI and Repeat Revascularization; ITT population

  24. Patient Profiling Local Heart team (surgeon & interventional cardiologist) assessed each patient in regards to: Patient’s operative risk (EuroSCORE & Parsonnet score) Coronary lesion complexity (newly developed SYNTAX score) Goal: SYNTAX score to provide guidance on optimal revascularization strategies for patients with high-risk lesions SYNTAX score Number & location of lesions Dominance Left Main Calcification 3 Vessel Thrombus Total Occlusion Bifurcation Tortuosity EuroInterv 2005;1:219-227 • BARI classification of coronary segments • Leaman score, Circ 1981;63:285-299 • Lesions classification ACC/AHA , Circ 2001;103:3019-3041 • Bifurcation classification, CCI 2000;49:274-283 • CTO classification, J Am Coll Cardiol 1997;30:649-656 Sianos et al, EuroIntervention 2005;1:219-227 Valgimigli et al, Am J Cardiol 2007;99:1072-1081 Serruys et al, EuroIntervention 2007;3:450-459

  25. MACCE to 12 months vs SYNTAX Score: Low scores (0-22) CABG(N=274) TAXUS(N=299) 30 20 Cumulative Event Rate (%) 10 0 0 6 12 Months Since Allocation P=0.71* 14.4% 13.5% RCT ITT pts; site-reported data Event Rate ± 1.5 SE; *chi square test; raw SYNTAX score for illustrative purposes only

  26. MACCE to 12 months vs SYNTAX Score: Intermediate scores (23-32) CABG(N=300) TAXUS(N=310) 30 20 Cumulative Event Rate (%) 10 0 0 6 12 Months Since Allocation P=0.10* 16.6% 11.7% RCT ITT pts; site-reported data Event Rate ± 1.5 SE; *chi square test; raw SYNTAX score for illustrative purposes only

  27. MACCE to 12 months vs SYNTAX Score: High scores (≥33) CABG(N=316) TAXUS(N=290) 30 20 Cumulative Event Rate (%) 10 0 0 6 12 Months Since Allocation P<0.001* 23.3% 10.7% RCT ITT pts; site-reported data Event Rate ± 1.5 SE; *chi square test; raw SYNTAX score for illustrative purposes only

  28. LM PCI Strategic Determinations • PCI vs CABG selection • PCI itself strategies • One-stent • Two-stent • Crush or step crush • Cullotte • T or provisional T • Kissing or step kissing • Principal: safety first !!!

  29. PCI vs CABG selection • Both technical mature and safety considered • Both technical mature and both safe: • CABG of choice, PCI second choice • PCI mature and safe : PCI • CABG mature and safe : CABG • PCI mature but high risk : No PCI • CABG mature but high risk : No CABG • Both technical premature : Neither CABG nor PCI • Both high risk : neither CABG nor PCI

  30. LM PCI Itself Strategy • Procedural unrisk----safety first !!! • Procedural strategies---- feasibility • Acute outcome----in-hosp death & ST • Long-term outcome----MACE • Low risk (pure LM disease ) : PCI • High risk (LM+TVD) : No PCI • CABG recommended • Cardiac surgeon consulted

  31. LM PCI: Technical Considerations • Experienced operators • Pre-determined strategy • Cardiac surgery stand-by and support • Emergency measures during procedure : device and drug • Pre-IABP (not stand-by): routine use for high risk patients • Routine IVUS check after procedure • Post-procedural monitoring (CCU)

  32. LM PCI：Key Determinant Factors • Operators’ experience • Risk evaluation and comparison (PCI vs CABG) • LM function • LM lesion location and anatomy • Simple or complex LM with TVD • Durable dual antiplatelet therapy for at least one year • IVUS available • CCU available • Clinical and CAG follow-up

  33. Shi JF F 64yrs 病案号：692169 09-8-24 • CABG for 3 months • LIMA 100%, • SVG-LCX 100% • LM bifurcation: 90% • Crush technique used • IVUS checked • Follow-up CAA(io-1-20) • SVG-RCA: patent

  34. Baseline CAA+PCI(crush)(09-8-24)

  35. Follow-up CAA(2010-1-20)

  36. LM Reverse Crush Yang Peng M 79 Yrs No :709952, 2010-03-01 LM bifurcation both 90% LAD: CTO LCX: 90% RCA: unremarkable CABG indicated and suggested but declined by surgeon due to 慢淋 IABP used TRI+Reverse crush done IAPB rupture while withrawal and withdrawaled successfully

  37. Baseline CAA+Reverse Crush

  38. LAD Predilatation+Stenting

  39. LM Reverse Crush Procedure

  40. LM Reverse Crush & Final Results

  41. Final Results & IABP Rupture Withdrawal

  42. LM Body+Bfurcation Reverse Crush 李金平 M 82 Yrs 2010-03-03 Unique No：714400 LM body+bifurcation lesion:90% LAD: 80-90% CABG recommended but refused by Pts IABP TRI + reverse crush procedure Optimal results

  43. IABP+Baseline CAA+ Ballooning

  44. Reverse Crush Procedure

More Related