Tehrani, Behnam

Background: Coronary in-stent restenosis (ISR) secondary to neointimal hyperplasia or neoatherosclerosis remains a significant challenge following percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), with no consensus on the optimal revascularization strategy. We compared the outcome of PCI for ISR using drug-coated balloons (DCB) and drug-eluting stents (DES) and investigated the time trends in their clinical outcomes. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library databases were searched through May 2024. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DCB versus DES among patients with coronary ISR. The primary outcome was target lesion revascularization (TLR). Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis, and late lumen loss (LLL). Random-effects models were employed to analyze outcomes within 1-year and beyond 1-year intervals. Meta-regression analysis was used to investigate the effect of age, sex, history of diabetes, hypertension, dyslipidemia, smoking, and ejection fraction on all outcomes by applying mixed-effect models. Results: We included 10 RCTs (1034 patients in the DCB group and 943 patients in the DES group). We found similar incidence of 1-year TLR (odds ratio [OR] 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.86, 2.14; P 0.194; I 2 43.3%) and >1-year TLR (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.57, 1.56; P 0.817; I 2 0%) with the use of DCB versus DES. The risks of all-cause mortality, MI, and stent thrombosis were comparable between DCB and DES in 1-year and beyond 1-year follow-ups. At 6-9 months angiographic follow-up, DCB was associated with non-significantly lower LLL compared to DES (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.12 millimeters; 95% CI -0.29, 0.05; P 0.170; I 2 71.7%). Meta-regression indicated that higher prevalence of diabetes was associated with an increased risk of 1-year revascularization after DCB compared to DES (Estimate 0.07; P 0.003; I 2 0%). Additionally, male sex was associated with an increased LLL in DCB versus DES (Estimate 0.034; P 0.001; I 2 41.8%). No association was found between other baseline characteristics and measured clinical outcomes. Conclusion: DCB demonstrated comparable PCI outcomes compared to DES in patients with coronary ISR.

Cardiogenic shock continues to carry a high mortality rate despite contemporary care, with no breakthrough therapies shown to improve survival over the past few decades. It is a time‐sensitive condition that commonly results in cardiovascular complications and multisystem organ failure, necessitating multidisciplinary expertise. Managing patients with cardiogenic shock remains challenging even in well‐resourced settings, and an important subgroup of patients may require cardiac replacement therapy. As a result, the idea of leveraging the collective cognitive and procedural proficiencies of multiple providers in a collaborative, team‐based approach to care (the “shock team”) has been advocated by professional societies and implemented at select high‐volume clinical centers. A slowly maturing evidence base has suggested that cardiogenic shock teams may improve patient outcomes. Although several registries exist that are beginning to inform care, particularly around therapeutic strategies of pharmacologic and mechanical circulatory support, none of these are currently focused on the shock team approach, multispecialty partnership, education, or process improvement. We propose the creation of a Cardiogenic Shock Team Collaborative—akin to the successful Pulmonary Embolism Response Team Consortium—with a goal to promote sharing of care protocols, education of stakeholders, and discovery of how process and performance may influence patient outcomes, quality, resource consumption, and costs of care.