AUCTORES
Globalize your Research
Research Article
*Corresponding Author: Ranjit Kumar Sharma, Department of Cardiology, Nepal Mediciti, Lalitpur 44600 Nepal
Citation: Ranjit Sharma, Anish Hirachan, Milan Gautam, Prabesh Neupane (2021) Unprotected Left Main is now no more Domain of Surgeon. J. Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, 4(14); Doi:10.31579/2641-0419/209
Copyright: © 2021 Ranjit Kumar Sharma, This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 03 August 2021 | Accepted: 16 August 2021 | Published: 20 August 2021
Keywords: coronary artery; coronary artery bypass surgery; left circumflex
Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery (ULMCA) disease is defined as significant stenosis in the Left Main Coronary Artery (LMCA) and there were no previous Coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) or patent bypass grafts to the left anterior descending (LAD) or left circumflex (LCX) arteries
Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery (ULMCA) disease is defined as significant stenosis in the Left Main Coronary Artery (LMCA) and there were no previous Coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) or patent bypass grafts to the left anterior descending (LAD) or left circumflex (LCX) arteries [1]. It is associated with high mortality as it supplies a large area of the myocardium—approximately 84% of the left ventricle in the right dominant system and 100% in a left dominant system [2]. ULMCA disease constitutes 5 to 7% of the patients undergoing coronary angiography [3]. The LMCA disease (i.e., > 50% stenosis) was found in 1477 (7.3%) of 20 137 patients in the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) registry [4]. Significant LMCA stenosis is defined as a >50% diameter stenosis, and the left main equivalent disease is defined as severe (70%) diameter stenosis of the proximal LAD and proximal left circumflex as judged by contrast angiography [5].
The left main coronary artery (LMCA) usually arises from the left coronary sinus, It passes between the pulmonary trunk and the left atrial appendage and just under the appendage in 70% of individuals bifurcates into the left anterior descending artery and left circumflex artery, and 30% trifurcates into an additional ramus intermedius [6]. An anomalous take-off from or above the right sinus of Valsalva represents a relatively common anatomic variant. Notably, the rare (estimated prevalence 0.03%) LM with an anomalous origin from the right coronary sinus and "intra-arterial" course between the aorta and pulmonary artery is associated with the risk of sudden death [7].
The LMCA contains a higher elastic tissue component compared to the rest of the coronary tree which can explain elastic recoil and high restenosis rate following balloon angioplasty. The ostium of the LMCA lacks the tunica adventitia and is richer in smooth muscle cells and elastic tissue than any other portion of the LMCA and its branches [8]. The LM is a large diameter artery with important variability across different individuals. The mean "reference" diameter, derived from a large intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) study is 5 mm and ranges between 3.5 and 6.5 mm with a mean length of 10.5±5.3 mm [9]. Usually, the short ostium is associated with the bicuspid aortic valve [10]. When considering the side branch relevance according to the amount of myocardium supplied, the left main bifurcation is known to have its major side branch (i.e., the LCX) supplying >10% of the myocardial mass in more than 95% of cases [11].
The left main disease most commonly occurs due to atherosclerosis, whereas other less common causes include vasospasm, arteritis, radiation, extrinsic compression [12]. LM disease is categorized into “ostial”, “mid-shaft” or “distal” based on angiography [13]. The distribution of LMCA lesions is approximately 10% ostial, predominantly occurring in young women, about 70% in the distal left main artery, and the remainder 20% in the shaft. In >80% of the cases, it is associated with multivessel involvement [14].
In up to 40% of patients, LM disease is associated with significant carotid artery stenosis [15]. In a study by Oviedo, it was found that continuous plaque from the LMCA into
the proximal LAD artery was seen in 90%, from the LMCA into the LCX artery in 66.4%, and from the LMCA into both the LAD and LCX arteries in 62%. Plaque localized to either LAD or LCX ostium and not involving distal LMCA was seen in only 9.3% of LAD arteries and 17.1% of LCX arteries [16]. When the LM bifurcation is diseased, intimal atherosclerosis is accelerated primarily in the area of low shear stress in the lateral wall close to the LAD and Lacs bifurcation and the carena is frequently free of disease [17].
Trial Evidence for LM Stenting
The SYNTAX trial included a subset of 705 patients with LM disease. There was no significant difference in MACCE (death, MI, stroke, and repeat revascularization) at 5 years (36.9% in PCI patients and 31% in CABG patients) (HR 1.23; 95% CI: 0.95–1.59; p = 0.12).
Mortality was 12.8 and 14.6% in PCI and CABG patients, respectively (HR 0.88 [0.58, 1.32]; p = 0.53). Stroke was significantly increased in the CABG group and repeat revascularization in the PCI arm. MACCE was similar between arms in patients with low/intermediate SYNTAX scores but significantly increased in PCI patients with high scores (≥ 33) [24].
In the EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial, 1,905 patients—with ULMCA disease with ≥ 70% diameter
stenosis, or ≥ 50% or ≤ 70% with either (1) noninvasive evidence of LM ischemia, (2) intravascular ultrasound-derived minimal lumen area (IVUS-MLA) ≤ 6.0 mm2, or (3) fractional flow reserve (FFR) ≤ 0.80, SYNTAX score ≤ 32, and clinical and anatomic eligibility for both PCI and CABG as agreed to by the local heart team—were randomized to PCI with fluoropolymer-based cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents or CABG. The primary endpoint, the composite of death from any cause, stroke, or MI at 3 years occurred in 15.4% of patients who underwent PCI group versus 14.7% of the patients who underwent CABG group meeting the noninferiority criterion. The secondary endpoint event of death, stroke, or MI at 30 days was lower in the PCI group (4.9% in the PCI group vs. 7.9% in the CABG group). The secondary endpoint event of death, stroke, MI, or ischemia-driven revascularization at 3 years occurred in fewer patients in the PCI group. CABG patients had fewer primary endpoint events than the PCI group patients between 30 days and 3 years after the procedure. Revascularization rates at 3
Years were higher with PCI than with CABG (12.6 vs. 7.5%) whereas the rates of early MI and major adverse events were lower with PCI than with CABG (8.1 vs. 23.0%) [25].
The EXCEL trial enrolled predominantly males (76%). Most patients were clinically at low risk (60% had stable ischemic heart disease and most patients had normal ejection fraction). Thirty percent were diabetic. According to the sites, the SYNTAX was low (≤ 22) in 60.5% of the patients and intermediate (23–32) in 39.5% of the patients. The core laboratory assigned higher scores, low in 35.8% of the patients, intermediate in 40.0%, and high (≥ 33) in 24.2%, the group that met the exclusion criteria. Most of the patients (80.5%) had distal left main bifurcation or trifurcation disease, and two- or three-vessel coronary artery disease was present in 51.3% of the patients. Average 1.9 lesions were treated per patient. A mean of 2.4 stents with a mean total stent length of 49.1 mm was implanted per patient. Femoral access was used in 73% of patients, and IVUS guidance was used in 77% of patients. Off-pump CABG was performed in 29%. Internal mammary artery (IMA) was used in 98.8% with bilateral IMA in 28.8% of patients.
NOBLE (Nordic-Baltic-British Left Main Revascularization Study) trial11 randomized patients with significant LM lesion visually assessed stenosis diameter ≥ 50% or FFR ≤ 0.80 and no more than three additional non-complex lesions (additional non-LM complex lesions were chronic total occlusions, bifurcation lesions requiring two-stent strategies, calcified or tortuous lesions). A total of 1,201 patients were randomly assigned to PCI or CABG. Kaplan-Meier 5-year estimates of MACCE (death from any cause, nonprocedural MI, repeat revascularization, or stroke) were 29% for PCI and 19% for CABG (HR 1.48; 95% CI: 1.11–1.96) with CABG being significantly better than PCI. Though all-cause mortality was not different, the rates of MI, revascularization and stroke were higher in PCI patients compared with CABG patients. Repeat revascularization was higher due to de novo lesion and target non-LMCA lesion revascularization. Notably, 1-year MACCE was the same in both groups. Surprisingly there was no association between the SYNTAX score and MACCE. Twenty percent of the population was female with 15% diabetics. Eighty percent had stable angina and most had preserved ejection fraction. Eighty-eight percent had distal LM lesions. Elective double stenting was used in 35% with culotte being the preferred technique. 11% of PCI cases received the first-generation DES in the LM. Kissing balloon inflation (KBI) was done in 55%, and any ostial circumflex post-dilatation was done in 79%. Complete revascularization was achieved in 92%. IVUS was done pre-PCI in 47% and post-PCI in 74%. CABG was done with the on-pump technique in 84%, with 93% of patients receiving left internal mammary artery. The number of grafts per patient was one in 4%, two in 52%, three in 39%, four in 4%, and five in < 1>
At present, combined data from the above six trials of 2355 patients randomized to LM PCI and 2362 patients randomized to CABG suggest non-inferiority of PCI about survival. However, higher repeat revascularizations in the PCI group remain a concern when compared to CABG. It may be concluded that PCI works best for Ostial and shaft lesions and in patients with SYNTAX score < 33> 33, CABG may be preferred although an individualized approach may be prudent [27].
1. Differences between studies in patient assessment, risk profiles, trial process, or procedural characteristics.
2. Differences in the stent used: EXCEL used a thin strut fluoropolymer-based cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents whereas NOBLE used first-generation sirolimus-eluting Cypher stent (11%) or the biolimus-eluting Biomatrix Flex stent (89%), resulting in a substantial difference in-stent thrombosis (0.7 vs. 3%). As a result, the rate of stent thrombosis or symptomatic graft occlusion was much higher after CABG than after PCI (5.4 vs. 0.7%) in EXCEL but similar (4 vs. 3%) in NOBLE.
3. Strategy of stenting: Both trials used a provisional stenting approach. In approximately 75% of patients, IVUS was used. Data were not available from EXCEL regarding the two-stent strategy. Thirty-five percent needed a two-stent strategy with the culotte technique being used in the majority in NOBLE.
4. Differences in primary endpoint used: EXCEL used death, MI, and stroke. Investigators included periprocedural MI. The EXCEL trial did not include repeat revascularization. The NOBLE trial, on the other hand, used only nonprocedural MI in the endpoint, and repeat revascularization was part of the primary composite endpoint. In the NOBLE trial, there was not much difference in target LM artery revascularization but more than a twofold increase in de novo lesion revascularization in the PCI group with most patients undergoing repeat PCI (96%). 5. Difference in trial duration: EXCEL reported data at 3 years whereas NOBLE reported data at 5 years. Remarkably in NOBLE, the 5-year mortality was not different in PCI and CABG groups whereas death, stroke, and repeat revascularization was higher in the PCI group. Data from EXCEL may look similar to NOBLE if repeat revascularization is included with an evaluation done at 5 years.
6. An unexplained higher risk of stroke after PCI in NOBLE, which was more than twice after PCI than CABG.
Although opposing findings may have an uncertainty on the optimal revascularization strategy, these trials also demonstrated how much PCI has been improved for LMCA treatment.
Technical Considerations in LM Stenting
When performing LMCA interventions, the following technical considerations are important.
1. Patient comorbidities: Elderly age, diabetes, renal failure, acute coronary syndrome on presentation, left ventricular dysfunction, concomitant valvular disease, previous cerebrovascular events, and so on.
2. Lesion morphology: Lesion location—Ostial, shaft, or bifurcation, presence of calcification, angulation, smaller LMCA diameter < 3> 70% and lesion length > 10 mm or if it satisfies two of the following six minor criteria: (1) moderate to severe calcification; (2) multiple lesions; (3) LAD-LCX bifurcation angle > 70 degrees; (4) main vessel reference vessel diameter < 2> 25 mm.
3. Use of additional equipment: To optimize and safely accomplish the LMCA intervention, consideration must be given to the use of additional equipment such as intravascular imaging, physiologic assessment, mechanical circulatory support, and ventilatory support.
Role of Coronary Imaging for LM Stenting
The results from the multicenter LITRO study indicated that LMCA intervention may be safely deferred if the minimal lumen area by IVUS is > 6 mm2. In this study comprising of 354 patients, LMCA intervention was deferred in 179 of 186 patients and undertaken 152 of 168 patients based on the minimal lumen area cut-off value of 6 mm2. During a 2-year follow-up, no difference was observed in cardiac death or events [28]. It is important to perform IVUS pull back from LAD and LCX into LMCA to assess the plaque burden at the Ostia of these branches and also to disengage the guide catheter to assess the plaque burden at LM ostium. An MLA < 3> 56% in the LCX ostium is a predictor of the need for a second stent after provisional stenting of the main vessel and LM ostium should be stented if the plaque burden is > 50% at the ostium [29]. Further IVUS also helps to assess the degree and depth of calcification and guides to decide for debulking strategy such as rotablation. Poststent IVUS run will help to detect stent under expansion and mal apposition Poststent minimal stent area to predict angiographic restenosis. The best IVUS criteria of minimal stent area predicting angiographic restenosis were 5.0 mm2 for the left circumflex artery ostium, 6.3 mm2 for the LAD ostium, 7.2 mm2 for the polygon of confluence, and 8.2 mm2 for the proximal LMCA above the polygon of confluence (so-called 5-6-7-8 rule of criteria) [30].
Optical coherence tomography (OCT) is the newer imaging modality with higher resolution and faster pull-back speed to assess the intravascular characteristics of the vessel and plaque. OCT is especially useful to identify stents under expansion and malposition with more precision compared to IVUS. Although at present no guideline recommendations are available for OCT-derived LM for intervention [31].
Strategies for LM Stenting
Ostial and shaft lesions may be easily carried out by appropriately sized stents and optimizing the result with post-dilation using a non-compliant balloon. When treating ostial LM lesions one or two struts should be positioned into the aorta and adequate dilatation should be done without causing dissection of the aorta.
Distal LM lesions may be treated by several approaches:
1. Cross-over strategy: Stent placement across LM into either LAD or LCX and optimizing the LM stent. In the LMCA bifurcation, intimal atherosclerosis is accelerated primarily in the area of low shear stress in the lateral wall close to the LAD and LCx bifurcation. Thus, the carena is frequently free of disease and this can explain the reason why the single-stent strategy can be successfully performed in patients with no or moderate disease by angiography.
2. Provisional stenting strategy: In this strategy, most commonly LM–LAD stent is done with a wire protecting the LCX. If there is a significant compromise of LCX or associated with angina or hemodynamic changes, bail-out stenting of LCX may be carried out using T and small protrusion (TAP) or culotte techniques. Before LM stenting, IVUS is helpful to decide in favor of provisional stent strategy. If the IVUS-derived minimal lumen is > 3.7 mm2 or plaque burden is < 56>
3. Two stent strategy: This strategy may be considered if the LCX is a dominant vessel if LCX ostium has a significant disease, LCX diameter > 2.5 mm, or the angle between LAD and LCX is narrow. Preferred techniques in this situation include T-or TAP-stenting, culotte, and mini-crush or double kissing (DK) crush techniques. If the LCX is smaller than LAD with a bifurcation angle > 70%, DK crush is ideal, and if it is < 70>
Mechanical Circulatory Support
IABP is the most commonly available device with easy and expeditious insertion but is associated with low efficacy to augment cardiac output. It may be useful in pre-shock/shock patients, electively, or during emergency crash situations during LM PCI. Impella provides a higher cardiac output and may be considered in high-risk LM PCI or during severe shock. Tandem heart and ECMO are mainly useful for cardiac arrest situations. It is very important to plan the device strategy before the commencement of LM intervention [35].
Percutaneous intervention with stent implantation for LMCA disease has become a standard procedure in contemporary practice with safety, expedited recovery, and durability. Precise selection of the strategy aided by intracoronary imaging, functional evaluation, and mechanical support when needed has improved the immediate and long-term results in this high-risk intervention. It is however important to have a team approach and operator expertise before embarking on LMCA interventions.
Clearly Auctoresonline and particularly Psychology and Mental Health Care Journal is dedicated to improving health care services for individuals and populations. The editorial boards' ability to efficiently recognize and share the global importance of health literacy with a variety of stakeholders. Auctoresonline publishing platform can be used to facilitate of optimal client-based services and should be added to health care professionals' repertoire of evidence-based health care resources.
Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Intervention The submission and review process was adequate. However I think that the publication total value should have been enlightened in early fases. Thank you for all.
Journal of Women Health Care and Issues By the present mail, I want to say thank to you and tour colleagues for facilitating my published article. Specially thank you for the peer review process, support from the editorial office. I appreciate positively the quality of your journal.
Journal of Clinical Research and Reports I would be very delighted to submit my testimonial regarding the reviewer board and the editorial office. The reviewer board were accurate and helpful regarding any modifications for my manuscript. And the editorial office were very helpful and supportive in contacting and monitoring with any update and offering help. It was my pleasure to contribute with your promising Journal and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
We would like to thank the Journal of Thoracic Disease and Cardiothoracic Surgery because of the services they provided us for our articles. The peer-review process was done in a very excellent time manner, and the opinions of the reviewers helped us to improve our manuscript further. The editorial office had an outstanding correspondence with us and guided us in many ways. During a hard time of the pandemic that is affecting every one of us tremendously, the editorial office helped us make everything easier for publishing scientific work. Hope for a more scientific relationship with your Journal.
The peer-review process which consisted high quality queries on the paper. I did answer six reviewers’ questions and comments before the paper was accepted. The support from the editorial office is excellent.
Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. I had the experience of publishing a research article recently. The whole process was simple from submission to publication. The reviewers made specific and valuable recommendations and corrections that improved the quality of my publication. I strongly recommend this Journal.
Dr. Katarzyna Byczkowska My testimonial covering: "The peer review process is quick and effective. The support from the editorial office is very professional and friendly. Quality of the Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on cardiology that is useful for other professionals in the field.
Thank you most sincerely, with regard to the support you have given in relation to the reviewing process and the processing of my article entitled "Large Cell Neuroendocrine Carcinoma of The Prostate Gland: A Review and Update" for publication in your esteemed Journal, Journal of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics". The editorial team has been very supportive.
Testimony of Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology: work with your Reviews has been a educational and constructive experience. The editorial office were very helpful and supportive. It was a pleasure to contribute to your Journal.
Dr. Bernard Terkimbi Utoo, I am happy to publish my scientific work in Journal of Women Health Care and Issues (JWHCI). The manuscript submission was seamless and peer review process was top notch. I was amazed that 4 reviewers worked on the manuscript which made it a highly technical, standard and excellent quality paper. I appreciate the format and consideration for the APC as well as the speed of publication. It is my pleasure to continue with this scientific relationship with the esteem JWHCI.
This is an acknowledgment for peer reviewers, editorial board of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. They show a lot of consideration for us as publishers for our research article “Evaluation of the different factors associated with side effects of COVID-19 vaccination on medical students, Mutah university, Al-Karak, Jordan”, in a very professional and easy way. This journal is one of outstanding medical journal.
Dear Hao Jiang, to Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing We greatly appreciate the efficient, professional and rapid processing of our paper by your team. If there is anything else we should do, please do not hesitate to let us know. On behalf of my co-authors, we would like to express our great appreciation to editor and reviewers.
As an author who has recently published in the journal "Brain and Neurological Disorders". I am delighted to provide a testimonial on the peer review process, editorial office support, and the overall quality of the journal. The peer review process at Brain and Neurological Disorders is rigorous and meticulous, ensuring that only high-quality, evidence-based research is published. The reviewers are experts in their fields, and their comments and suggestions were constructive and helped improve the quality of my manuscript. The review process was timely and efficient, with clear communication from the editorial office at each stage. The support from the editorial office was exceptional throughout the entire process. The editorial staff was responsive, professional, and always willing to help. They provided valuable guidance on formatting, structure, and ethical considerations, making the submission process seamless. Moreover, they kept me informed about the status of my manuscript and provided timely updates, which made the process less stressful. The journal Brain and Neurological Disorders is of the highest quality, with a strong focus on publishing cutting-edge research in the field of neurology. The articles published in this journal are well-researched, rigorously peer-reviewed, and written by experts in the field. The journal maintains high standards, ensuring that readers are provided with the most up-to-date and reliable information on brain and neurological disorders. In conclusion, I had a wonderful experience publishing in Brain and Neurological Disorders. The peer review process was thorough, the editorial office provided exceptional support, and the journal's quality is second to none. I would highly recommend this journal to any researcher working in the field of neurology and brain disorders.
Dear Agrippa Hilda, Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery, Editorial Coordinator, I trust this message finds you well. I want to extend my appreciation for considering my article for publication in your esteemed journal. I am pleased to provide a testimonial regarding the peer review process and the support received from your editorial office. The peer review process for my paper was carried out in a highly professional and thorough manner. The feedback and comments provided by the authors were constructive and very useful in improving the quality of the manuscript. This rigorous assessment process undoubtedly contributes to the high standards maintained by your journal.
International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. I strongly recommend to consider submitting your work to this high-quality journal. The support and availability of the Editorial staff is outstanding and the review process was both efficient and rigorous.
Thank you very much for publishing my Research Article titled “Comparing Treatment Outcome Of Allergic Rhinitis Patients After Using Fluticasone Nasal Spray And Nasal Douching" in the Journal of Clinical Otorhinolaryngology. As Medical Professionals we are immensely benefited from study of various informative Articles and Papers published in this high quality Journal. I look forward to enriching my knowledge by regular study of the Journal and contribute my future work in the field of ENT through the Journal for use by the medical fraternity. The support from the Editorial office was excellent and very prompt. I also welcome the comments received from the readers of my Research Article.
Dear Erica Kelsey, Editorial Coordinator of Cancer Research and Cellular Therapeutics Our team is very satisfied with the processing of our paper by your journal. That was fast, efficient, rigorous, but without unnecessary complications. We appreciated the very short time between the submission of the paper and its publication on line on your site.
I am very glad to say that the peer review process is very successful and fast and support from the Editorial Office. Therefore, I would like to continue our scientific relationship for a long time. And I especially thank you for your kindly attention towards my article. Have a good day!
"We recently published an article entitled “Influence of beta-Cyclodextrins upon the Degradation of Carbofuran Derivatives under Alkaline Conditions" in the Journal of “Pesticides and Biofertilizers” to show that the cyclodextrins protect the carbamates increasing their half-life time in the presence of basic conditions This will be very helpful to understand carbofuran behaviour in the analytical, agro-environmental and food areas. We greatly appreciated the interaction with the editor and the editorial team; we were particularly well accompanied during the course of the revision process, since all various steps towards publication were short and without delay".
I would like to express my gratitude towards you process of article review and submission. I found this to be very fair and expedient. Your follow up has been excellent. I have many publications in national and international journal and your process has been one of the best so far. Keep up the great work.
We are grateful for this opportunity to provide a glowing recommendation to the Journal of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. We found that the editorial team were very supportive, helpful, kept us abreast of timelines and over all very professional in nature. The peer review process was rigorous, efficient and constructive that really enhanced our article submission. The experience with this journal remains one of our best ever and we look forward to providing future submissions in the near future.
I am very pleased to serve as EBM of the journal, I hope many years of my experience in stem cells can help the journal from one way or another. As we know, stem cells hold great potential for regenerative medicine, which are mostly used to promote the repair response of diseased, dysfunctional or injured tissue using stem cells or their derivatives. I think Stem Cell Research and Therapeutics International is a great platform to publish and share the understanding towards the biology and translational or clinical application of stem cells.
I would like to give my testimony in the support I have got by the peer review process and to support the editorial office where they were of asset to support young author like me to be encouraged to publish their work in your respected journal and globalize and share knowledge across the globe. I really give my great gratitude to your journal and the peer review including the editorial office.
I am delighted to publish our manuscript entitled "A Perspective on Cocaine Induced Stroke - Its Mechanisms and Management" in the Journal of Neuroscience and Neurological Surgery. The peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal are excellent. The manuscripts published are of high quality and of excellent scientific value. I recommend this journal very much to colleagues.
Dr.Tania Muñoz, My experience as researcher and author of a review article in The Journal Clinical Cardiology and Interventions has been very enriching and stimulating. The editorial team is excellent, performs its work with absolute responsibility and delivery. They are proactive, dynamic and receptive to all proposals. Supporting at all times the vast universe of authors who choose them as an option for publication. The team of review specialists, members of the editorial board, are brilliant professionals, with remarkable performance in medical research and scientific methodology. Together they form a frontline team that consolidates the JCCI as a magnificent option for the publication and review of high-level medical articles and broad collective interest. I am honored to be able to share my review article and open to receive all your comments.
“The peer review process of JPMHC is quick and effective. Authors are benefited by good and professional reviewers with huge experience in the field of psychology and mental health. The support from the editorial office is very professional. People to contact to are friendly and happy to help and assist any query authors might have. Quality of the Journal is scientific and publishes ground-breaking research on mental health that is useful for other professionals in the field”.
Dear editorial department: On behalf of our team, I hereby certify the reliability and superiority of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews in the peer review process, editorial support, and journal quality. Firstly, the peer review process of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is rigorous, fair, transparent, fast, and of high quality. The editorial department invites experts from relevant fields as anonymous reviewers to review all submitted manuscripts. These experts have rich academic backgrounds and experience, and can accurately evaluate the academic quality, originality, and suitability of manuscripts. The editorial department is committed to ensuring the rigor of the peer review process, while also making every effort to ensure a fast review cycle to meet the needs of authors and the academic community. Secondly, the editorial team of the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is composed of a group of senior scholars and professionals with rich experience and professional knowledge in related fields. The editorial department is committed to assisting authors in improving their manuscripts, ensuring their academic accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Editors actively collaborate with authors, providing useful suggestions and feedback to promote the improvement and development of the manuscript. We believe that the support of the editorial department is one of the key factors in ensuring the quality of the journal. Finally, the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is renowned for its high- quality articles and strict academic standards. The editorial department is committed to publishing innovative and academically valuable research results to promote the development and progress of related fields. The International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews is reasonably priced and ensures excellent service and quality ratio, allowing authors to obtain high-level academic publishing opportunities in an affordable manner. I hereby solemnly declare that the International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews has a high level of credibility and superiority in terms of peer review process, editorial support, reasonable fees, and journal quality. Sincerely, Rui Tao.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions I testity the covering of the peer review process, support from the editorial office, and quality of the journal.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, we deeply appreciate the interest shown in our work and its publication. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you. The peer review process, as well as the support provided by the editorial office, have been exceptional, and the quality of the journal is very high, which was a determining factor in our decision to publish with you.
The peer reviewers process is quick and effective, the supports from editorial office is excellent, the quality of journal is high. I would like to collabroate with Internatioanl journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews journal clinically in the future time.
Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I would like to express my sincerest gratitude for the trust placed in our team for the publication in your journal. It has been a true pleasure to collaborate with you on this project. I am pleased to inform you that both the peer review process and the attention from the editorial coordination have been excellent. Your team has worked with dedication and professionalism to ensure that your publication meets the highest standards of quality. We are confident that this collaboration will result in mutual success, and we are eager to see the fruits of this shared effort.
Dear Dr. Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator 0f Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, I hope this message finds you well. I want to express my utmost gratitude for your excellent work and for the dedication and speed in the publication process of my article titled "Navigating Innovation: Qualitative Insights on Using Technology for Health Education in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients." I am very satisfied with the peer review process, the support from the editorial office, and the quality of the journal. I hope we can maintain our scientific relationship in the long term.
Dear Monica Gissare, - Editorial Coordinator of Nutrition and Food Processing. ¨My testimony with you is truly professional, with a positive response regarding the follow-up of the article and its review, you took into account my qualities and the importance of the topic¨.
Dear Dr. Jessica Magne, Editorial Coordinator 0f Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions, The review process for the article “The Handling of Anti-aggregants and Anticoagulants in the Oncologic Heart Patient Submitted to Surgery” was extremely rigorous and detailed. From the initial submission to the final acceptance, the editorial team at the “Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions” demonstrated a high level of professionalism and dedication. The reviewers provided constructive and detailed feedback, which was essential for improving the quality of our work. Communication was always clear and efficient, ensuring that all our questions were promptly addressed. The quality of the “Journal of Clinical Cardiology and Cardiovascular Interventions” is undeniable. It is a peer-reviewed, open-access publication dedicated exclusively to disseminating high-quality research in the field of clinical cardiology and cardiovascular interventions. The journal's impact factor is currently under evaluation, and it is indexed in reputable databases, which further reinforces its credibility and relevance in the scientific field. I highly recommend this journal to researchers looking for a reputable platform to publish their studies.
Dear Editorial Coordinator of the Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing! "I would like to thank the Journal of Nutrition and Food Processing for including and publishing my article. The peer review process was very quick, movement and precise. The Editorial Board has done an extremely conscientious job with much help, valuable comments and advices. I find the journal very valuable from a professional point of view, thank you very much for allowing me to be part of it and I would like to participate in the future!”
Dealing with The Journal of Neurology and Neurological Surgery was very smooth and comprehensive. The office staff took time to address my needs and the response from editors and the office was prompt and fair. I certainly hope to publish with this journal again.Their professionalism is apparent and more than satisfactory. Susan Weiner
My Testimonial Covering as fellowing: Lin-Show Chin. The peer reviewers process is quick and effective, the supports from editorial office is excellent, the quality of journal is high. I would like to collabroate with Internatioanl journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews.
My experience publishing in Psychology and Mental Health Care was exceptional. The peer review process was rigorous and constructive, with reviewers providing valuable insights that helped enhance the quality of our work. The editorial team was highly supportive and responsive, making the submission process smooth and efficient. The journal's commitment to high standards and academic rigor makes it a respected platform for quality research. I am grateful for the opportunity to publish in such a reputable journal.
My experience publishing in International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews was exceptional. I Come forth to Provide a Testimonial Covering the Peer Review Process and the editorial office for the Professional and Impartial Evaluation of the Manuscript.
