Reilly, John P.

AbstractThe Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) Think Tank is a collaborative venture that brings together interventional cardiologists, administrative partners, and select members of the cardiovascular industry community annually for high‐level field‐wide discussions. The 2021 Think Tank was organized into four parallel sessions reflective of the field of interventional cardiology: (a) coronary intervention, (b) endovascular medicine, (c) structural heart disease, and (d) congenital heart disease. Each session was moderated by a senior content expert and co‐moderated by a member of SCAI's Emerging Leader Mentorship program. This document presents the proceedings to the wider cardiovascular community in order to enhance participation in this discussion, create additional dialog from a broader base, and thereby aid SCAI, the industry community and external stakeholders in developing specific action items to move these areas forward.

Numerous definitions have been proposed for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction (MI) after coronary revascularization. The universal definition for MI designates post procedural biomarker thresholds for defining percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)‐related MI (type 4a) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)‐related MI (type 5) which are of uncertain prognostic importance. In addition, for both MI types cTn is recommended as the biomarker of choice, the prognostic significance of which is less well validated than CK‐MB. Widespread adoption of a MI definition not clearly linked to subsequent adverse events such as mortality or heart failure may have serious consequences for the appropriate assessment of devices and therapies, may affect clinical care pathways, and may result in misinterpretation of physician competence. Rather than employing an MI definition sensitive for small degrees of myonecrosis (the occurrence of which, based on contemporary large‐scale studies, are unlikely to have important clinical consequences), it is instead recommended that a threshold level of biomarker elevation which has been strongly linked to subsequent adverse events in clinical studies be used to define a “clinically relevant MI.” The present document introduces a new definition for "clinically relevant MI" after coronary revascularization (PCI or CABG) which is applicable for use in clinical trials, patient care, and quality outcomes assessment. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Background— Although 192 Ir intracoronary brachytherapy has been demonstrated to dramatically reduce the recurrence of in-stent restenosis, up to 24% of these patients will still require repeat target-vessel revascularization. The short- and long-term outcomes of repeat percutaneous intervention in this population have not been characterized. Methods and Results— Analysis was performed of all patients enrolled in the GAMMA-I and GAMMA-II brachytherapy trials who underwent repeat percutaneous target lesion revascularization (TLR) because of restenosis. Subjects were divided into 2 cohorts: those who had received 192 Ir brachytherapy and those randomized to placebo. Forty-five (17.6%) of a total of 256 patients whose index treatment was intracoronary radiation therapy and 36 (29.8%) of 121 patients whose index treatment was placebo required repeat percutaneous TLR. The mean time to this first TLR was 295±206 days in the irradiated group and 202±167 days in the placebo group ( P =0.03). Acute procedural success occurred in 100% of irradiated patients and 94% of placebo controls ( P =0.19). After the first TLR, a subsequent TLR was required in 15 (33.3%) of 45 brachytherapy patients versus 17 (47.2%) of 36 placebo failure patients ( P =0.26). There was no significant difference in time to second TLR between the 2 groups. Other long-term major adverse event rates in both groups were comparable to those of other contemporary angioplasty/stenting series. Conclusions— In those patients who “fail” 192 Ir intracoronary brachytherapy for in-stent restenosis, treatment with 192 Ir delays the time to first TLR. Additionally, repeat percutaneous intervention in these patients is safe and efficacious in the short term, with acceptable long-term results.