Foreword

Login or register to view PDF.
Received date
22 September 2017
Accepted date
22 September 2017
Citation
Interventional Cardiology Review 2017;12(2):78
DOI
https://doi.org/10.15420/icr.2017.12.02.78

In this issue of Interventional Cardiology Review there are three papers that demonstrate how the steady accumulation of data, not exclusively randomised data, can lead to the development of a consensus regarding particular aspects of interventional cardiology. Vein graft interventions, stent optimisation and predilation prior to TAVI are longstanding issues of concern to all cardiologists undertaking coronary and structural interventions. Michael Lee and Jeremy Kong, Ashok Seth’s group, and Matteo Pagnesi’s group, respectively, have provided excellent papers summarising the available data that has informed their approach to these issues.

The treatment of left main stem disease is another frequently encountered clinical scenario that coronary interventionists have to face and Nyal Borges, Samir R Kapadia and Stephen G Ellis have usefully documented their approach to left main stem revascularisation, based on data from recent randomised controlled trials.

Stephan Achenbach’s group have written a paper that comprehensively details how fractional flow reserve measurements can be reliably performed and, importantly, interpreted: a useful practical guide with tips and tricks for the use of pressure wires to assess coronary lesions. Angela Hoye completes the coronary section with an excellent paper on the why and how to perform the proximal optimisation technique.

Fadi J Sawaya and Lars Søndergaard tell us how the results of the PARTNER 2 trial have affected practice in a department that has contributed to many of the seminal randomised controlled trials in the field of transcatheter aortic valve implantation. There is also now a substantial body of research assessing the value of the Sentinel cerebral protection device and Professor Schafer from the University Hospital Eppendorf, Hamburg along with Peyton Willert from Claret Medical have concisely summarised this data.

Finally, Andrew Archbold and I have provided a commentary on the most recent guidelines relating to the management of patients with severe aortic stenosis who require non-cardiac surgery, and how we think the next set of guidelines should differ.