In the introduction to this month’s issue of EuroIntervention, we begin in the usual way, with the presentation of the articles we have received, reviewed, accepted, copy edited, paginated and published for you… however, we will finish in a far more unusual, but very important fashion.
Why?
Because we have chosen to dedicate two pages to our best reviewers from the past year. It is to these reviewers that we owe an enormous debt of gratitude. Their voluntary commitment to the quality and educational value that this Journal strives for is one of the most important and critical elements in the chain of editorial decision making.
Paying homage to those who have performed more reviews for EuroIntervention in 2020, or who respected the time allocated to complete them, in no way means we are neglecting the contribution of those who have undertaken fewer reviews.
Every single revision is a valuable piece in the overall mosaic puzzle that helps to define the Journal as you see it. Revising an article means constructively spending quality time dedicating part of your experience to improving science.
When I listen to the opinions of Editors of other journals, I am convinced that EuroIntervention is truly fortunate in being able to count on a database of reviewers who are not only experts in their assigned topics, but are also very efficient, respectful of deadlines and reliable.
In EuroIntervention, all reviews are scored by the Section Editors and Deputy Editors to allow us to identify and reward those who have devoted the most passion, time and energy in helping the Journal achieve its goals.
Of all the actions we are taking to help the Journal grow, those involving reviewers are the ones that give me the greatest food for thought. What can we do to reward the loyalty of our reviewers? Celebrate them, at the very least – which is the reason for this annual ranking – but we want to do more. So, if you have any suggestions, please don’t hesitate to let us know. Right now, however, before we turn to our reviewers, let’s see what we – with their work, passion and commitment – have been able to offer in this issue of EuroIntervention.
The mini focus this month is on the critical issue of ischaemia with non-obstructed coronary arteries (INOCA). We begin with an EAPCI consensus document by Vijay Kunadian, Andreas Baumbach and colleagues in collaboration with the ESC Working Group on Coronary Pathophysiology and Microcirculation, a seminal paper addressing the challenges involved in the diagnosis and management of INOCA today. In the vast population of patients worldwide who present with angina pectoris, a large percentage do not have obstructive coronary artery disease. INOCA, which is more commonly seen in women than in men, is often not diagnosed, or misdiagnosed as not being cardiac in origin. As there is a wide spectrum of clinical symptoms and signs and poor prognosis, this consensus article offers clinical guidance on the available approaches and treatments, highlighting existing evidence, best available current practice and upcoming research with the aim of increasing overall awareness of INOCA.
Our mini focus now turns to patients with angina, studying the haemodynamic significance of myocardial bridging. Using intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and diastolic fractional flow reserve (dFFR), Vedant Satish Pargaonkar, Jennifer A. Tremmel and colleagues conclude that a myocardial bridge should be considered as a potential cause of angina in these patients. Comprehensive invasive assessment with IVUS and dFFR to test for myocardial bridging could offer diagnostic information that would be of assistance in choosing therapy and improving symptoms and quality of life.
Continuing with ischaemia with non-obstructive coronary artery disease, Michel T. Corban, Amir Lerman and colleagues studied the clinical diagnostic and prognostic implications of sex differences in coronary physiology. Examining coronary blood flow (CBF) and coronary flow velocity reserve (CFVR) in men and women, they found that, in patients with chest pain and non-obstructed coronary arteries, female sex was an important predictor of lower CFVR, higher resting CBF and lower hyperaemic CBF. The clinical, diagnostic and prognostic implications of sex differences will need to be elucidated further.
In coronary interventions, the next two articles by Ziad A. Ali, Gregg W. Stone and colleagues focus on the ILUMIEN III and ILUMIEN IV trials. These trials were designed to explore and help us better understand the information and clinical guidance that imaging affords in PCI. The ILUMIEN III trial compared results using optical coherence tomography (OCT)-guided PCI with those using IVUS and angiography-guided PCI. In this 12-month update, the comparison showed little difference in clinical impact between the two imaging procedures. As the authors explain, this trial laid “the foundation” for the ongoing larger-scale ILUMIEN IV trial, where the superiority of OCT-guided versus angiography-guided stent implantation in patients with diabetes and/or complex angiographic lesions is being explored. Evelyn Regar provides an editorial offering a critical overview of the state of imaging in interventional medicine and the impact that the ILUMIEN series of trials can and will have as results become available.
Finishing the section on coronary interventions, in a short report, Luis Ortega-Paz, Manel Sabaté and colleagues discuss the causes of target lesion revascularisation and thrombosis with a second-generation drug-eluting absorbable metal scaffold. Exploring OCT findings from a series of cases, the authors bring together information that can assist in clinical decision making for the use of these devices, as well as pointing to what needs to be improved in their future iterations.
In the section on interventions for valvular disease and heart failure, Stephen Worthley, Andrejs Erglis and colleagues look at a novel device for managing mitral regurgitation (MR), presenting the one-year outcomes of the MAVERIC trial. This trial evaluates the transcatheter ARTO system, which aims to offer shorter and less invasive procedure for functional MR, improving MR grades in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and coexisting functional MR – patients in whom comorbidities and increased procedural risks make the possibility of surgery to correct MR difficult. This article is accompanied by an editorial by Georg Nickenig and Marc Ulrich Becher looking at transcatheter MR devices today.
In the section on interventions for stroke prevention, understanding and assessing the impact of spontaneous echo contrast (SEC) and left atrial appendage thrombus (LAAT) on periprocedural outcome after TAVI is the subject of another article by Matthias Linder, Moritz Seiffert and colleagues. The authors found that SEC, present in a number of patients, could be seen as an independent risk factor for disabling ischaemic stroke within 24 hours. Similarly, patients with LAAT were seen to be associated with an impaired one-year survival. Studies like this could provide critical information for those patients at risk, allowing preventive measures and strategies to be evaluated and implemented. Rajesh Kharbanda and James D. Newton provide an editorial on this topic.
That’s it for this issue of EuroIntervention. However, before we move on, please take a moment to look through the list that follows and join me in celebrating our reviewers and their commitment to our Journal!
Perhaps you will join them and find your name on the list next year?
Supplementary data
To read the full content of this article, please download the PDF.
