The year in cardiology 2016: coronary interventions
█ Current Opinion
Carlo Di Mario1,2, Carlotta Sorini1*, William Wijns3
1Structural Interventional Cardiology Division, Careggi University Hospital, Largo Brambilla 3, 50134 Florence, Italy
2National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, Sydney Street, Chelsea, London SW3 6NP, London
3Lambe Institute for Translational Medicine and Curam, National University of Ireland, Galway and Saolta University Healthcare Group, University Road, Galway, Ireland
The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the Editors of the European Heart Journal or of the European Society of Cardiology.
2016 can be hardly described as a year of revolutions in interventional cardiology. Still multiple randomized studies supported the 3 to 5 year efficacy of metallic drug eluting stents in left main disease, cast doubts on long-term outcome after fully biodegradable stents, discouraged routine thrombectomy during primary PCI, gave a mixed message on the importance of physiological guidance of coronary revascularization, helpful for non-culprit lesions in STEMI, questionable for multivessel disease in allcomers, and defeated the paradigm that a fully arterial surgical revascularization delivers better clinical outcome.