20 years of EuroIntervention! A clinical consensus statement on high-risk PCI in surgically ineligible patients; a comprehensive diagnostic algorithm for CCS; treatment of microvascular angina; the PARTHENOPE trial; FFR-CT in patients with high-risk NSTE-ACS; a trial of DOACs versus warfarin for left ventricular thrombus; and more
A new year begins for our Editorial Board, a year which marks my fifth year as the Editor-in-Chief. Looking back, it feels as though time has flown so quickly that it seems as if no time at all has passed, and yet, when comparing this issue to the one from January 2020, the difference is striking – they almost feel like two separate journals. Step by step, through small changes and what we believe to be improvements, we have arrived at today’s version.
But let’s be clear: this is not our final destination, even though the pieces of the puzzle are finally starting to reveal the journal we envisioned when we began this journey of steering EuroIntervention into a new era.
Our goal has always been to create a journal that delivers critical information promptly – a more agile publication with issues released more frequently and designed for quicker reading. We introduced a modernised layout that lightens the reading experience and aligns with a contemporary, rather than traditional, style. We’ve focused on visual elements, ensuring that figures are part of a cohesive and recognisable whole. For authors, we have aimed to provide a transparent and reliable system that leads to timely decisions, whether favourable or unfavourable. I believe the implementation of the pre-submission inquiry system and the streamlined submission process represents significant progress in addressing the needs of authors – a personal priority for me as an author as well.
In 2025, I truly hope to make similar progress with what I consider to be our most valuable asset: our reviewers. While this issue, as always, celebrates their contributions, much remains to be done to renew their enthusiasm and support for the vital service they provide to the interventional community. I cannot overstate how fortunate I feel to work with a journal that boasts such a dedicated pool of reviewers – their names follow this editorial – who consistently rise to the occasion and contribute to the journal’s success.
Now, before diving into the customary highlights that accompany our expanded print editions, I am delighted to officially open a year of celebrations. For EuroIntervention, this marks the 20th anniversary of its founding. Throughout the year, you will notice a special logo and various initiatives that commemorate this milestone. For my part, I am proud to have been a small contributor these past five years to the journal’s history.
But now, let’s see what the first issue of 2025 holds in store for us.
We begin the new year with a clinical consensus statement from the EAPCI and ESC Working Group on Cardiovascular Surgery. Authors Andreas Schäfer, Giuseppe Tarantini and colleagues focus on high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction considered ineligible for surgical revascularisation – which is on the rise. They define the current procedural and technical requirements that may improve the efficacy and safety of PCI, both in the acute phase and at long-term follow-up in this patient cohort. This statement includes a detailed discussion of how the Heart Team’s planning can contribute to a comprehensive treatment plan that extends beyond the PCI itself.
Next, in the AID-ANGIO study, Adrián Jerónimo, Javier Escaned and colleagues test the application of an advanced invasive diagnosis (AID) strategy, a hierarchical algorithm designed to identify the cause of myocardial ischaemia in patients with chronic coronary syndrome referred for invasive coronary angiography (ICA). The AID strategy was associated with a 2.6-fold increase in the diagnostic yield compared to invasive coronary angiography alone, and the majority of cases had their therapeutic plan modified as a result. This article is accompanied by an editorial by Frederik M. Zimmermann and Ciro Pollio Benvenuto.
In an original research meta-analysis, Matthew Hammond-Haley, Rasha Al-Lamee and colleagues provide a comprehensive, systematic review of the currently available data on the treatment of microvascular angina. The authors found a paucity of data to support any specific treatment strategy, and that nearly 1 in 5 studies on microvascular angina did not enrol patients who met contemporary COVADIS criteria. They underline the unmet need for large, placebo-controlled, randomised controlled trials evaluating long- term clinical outcomes.
We then turn to polymer-free drug-eluting stents which may help to eliminate risks associated with permanent or biodegradable polymers, including chronic inflammatory responses and polymer cracking, webbing or delamination. In the PARTHENOPE trial, Raffaele Piccolo, Giovanni Esposito and colleagues evaluate the efficacy and safety of a polymer-free amphilimus-eluting stent compared with a biodegradable-polymer everolimus-eluting stent in an all-comer cohort undergoing PCI. The primary endpoint, a device-oriented composite endpoint at one year, demonstrated non-inferiority. The efficacy was also comparable between the devices, but the 30-day stent thrombosis rate warrants further investigation. Jens Flensted Lassen and Lisette Okkels Jensen contribute an editorial on this article.
A large proportion of patients referred for invasive coronary angiography ultimately have no significant epicardial stenoses. David Meier, Stephane Fournier and colleagues investigate whether coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) and fractional flow reserve (FFR) derived from CCTA (FFR-CT) can improve diagnostic accuracy, thus reducing the number of unnecessary coronary angiographies. Their data suggest that FFR-CT is able to rule out haemodynamically significant stenoses with greater specificity and positive predictive values but need confirmation in a larger study, as enrolment was stopped because of recruitment issues during the pandemic. This article is accompanied by an editorial by Nick Curzen.
To close this issue’s original research section, we bring you a small pilot study and a concurrent meta-analysis of existing literature. Here, Yaser Jenab, Behnood Bikdeli and colleagues compare the effect of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) versus warfarin in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction complicated by left ventricular thrombus. Three-month complete left ventricular thrombus resolution occurred in 76% of those treated with rivaroxaban and 54% of those treated with warfarin with no major bleeding or thrombotic events. Their pooled analysis also showed better complete left ventricular thrombus resolution with DOACs and less major bleeding than warfarin. Felicita Andreotti and Francesco Burzotta contributed an editorial on this article.
In a research correspondence, Michael J. Bloch, Michael Weber and colleagues analyse pooled data from the RADIANCE programme concerning patients with mild to moderate hypertension on antihypertensive medications who, at 2 months, crossed over to ultrasound renal denervation from a sham procedure. The authors found that patients who crossed over had a clinically meaningful and statistically significant reduction in blood pressure, without an increase in medication burden.
Now turn the page and discover the first edition of our 20th year for yourselves.
