Search

The periendoscopic management of anticoagulation (AC) in patients with valvular atrial fibrillation and history of embolic stroke is an area of uncertainty. Despite the availability of some guideline recommendations, the decision regarding bridging AC is usually at the discretion of the physician.

Myocardial rupture is an uncommon complication that usually occurs after myocardial infarction (MI) or chest trauma. It includes free wall rupture (FWR), contained rupture and incomplete myocardial rupture (IMR). Predisposing factors include old age, female gender, hypertension, first MI and

Microangiopathic hemolytic anemia (MAHA) is usually caused by infection, autoimmune disorders, and or genetic predisposition. More recently MAHA secondary to cocaine use has been described. We report a case of cocaine-induced MAHA presenting as non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). A 44

Objectives This study sought to compare the unrestricted use of everolimus-eluting stents (EES) with sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Background It is unclear whether there are differences in safety and efficacy between EES and SES during long-term follow-up. Methods Using propensity score matching, clinical outcome was compared among 1,342 propensity score–matched pairs of patients treated with EES and SES. The primary outcome was a composite of death, MI, and target vessel revascularization. Results The median follow-up was 1.5 years with a maximum of 3 years. The primary outcome occurred in 14.9% of EES- and 18.0% of SES-treated patients up to 3 years (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.83, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68 to 1.00, p = 0.056). All-cause mortality (6.0% vs. 6.5%, HR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.25, p = 0.59) was similar, risks of myocardial infarction (MI) (3.3% vs. 5.0%, HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.42 to 0.92, p = 0.017), and target vessel revascularization (7.0% vs. 9.6%, HR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.99, p = 0.039) were lower with EES than SES. Definite stent thrombosis (ST) (HR: 0.30, 95% CI: 0.12 to 0.75, p = 0.01) was less frequent among patients treated with EES. The reduced rate of MI with EES was explained in part by the lower risk of definite ST and the corresponding decrease in events associated with ST (HR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.08 to 0.75, p = 0.013). Conclusions The unrestricted use of EES appears to be associated with improved clinical long-term outcome compared with SES. Differences in favor of EES are driven in part by a lower risk of MI associated with ST.

Objectives The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of patient and lesion complexity on outcomes with newer-generation zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES) and everolimus-eluting stents (EES). Background Clinical and angiographic outcomes of newer-generation stents have not been described among complex patients. Methods Patients enrolled in the RESOLUTE All Comers trial (A Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) were stratified into “complex” and “simple.” Results Of 2,292 patients, 1,520 (66.3%) were complex and treated with ZES (n = 764) or EES (n = 756). Event rates were higher among complex patients, and results did not differ between ZES and EES, regardless of complexity. At 1 year, target lesion failure was 8.9% in ZES- and 9.7% in EES-treated complex patients (p = 0.66) and 6.8% in ZES- and 5.7% in EES-treated simple patients (p = 0.55). Rates of cardiac death (1.3% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.24), target-vessel myocardial infarction (4.3% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.90), and clinically indicated target lesion revascularization (4.4% vs. 4.0%, p = 0.80) were similar for both stent types among complex patients. Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 20 (1.3%) complex patients with no difference between ZES (1.7%) and EES (0.9%, p = 0.26). Angiographic follow-up showed similar results for ZES and EES in terms of in-stent percentage diameter stenosis (22.2 ± 15.4% vs. 21.4 ± 15.8%, p = 0.67) and in-segment binary restenosis (6.6% vs. 8.0%, p = 0.82) in the complex group. Conclusions In this all-comers randomized trial, major adverse cardiovascular events were more frequent among complex than simple patients. The newer-generation ZES and EES proved to be safe and effective, regardless of complexity, with similar clinical and angiographic outcomes for both stent types through 1 year. (RESOLUTE-III All Comers Trial: A Randomized Comparison of a Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent With an Everolimus-Eluting Stent for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention; NCT00617084 )

Coronary artery disease (CAD) and aortic stenosis (AS) frequently coexist. It remains unknown whether CAD severity exerts a gradient of risk in patients with AS undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). A total of 445 patients with severe AS undergoing TAVI were included into a

Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction or diastolic heart failure (DHF) accounts for about 50% of clinical heart failure and is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Only few epidemiological studies addressed the trends in outcomes over the last decade in the U.S We analyzed 20% of all

Objectives This study sought to assess the impact of permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation on clinical outcomes among patients undergoing transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Background TAVI is associated with atrioventricular-conduction abnormalities requiring PPM implantation in up to 40% among patients treated with self-expanding prostheses. Methods Between 2007 and 2010, 353 consecutive patients (mean age: 82.6 ± 6.1 years, log EuroSCORE: 25.0 ± 15.0%) with severe aortic stenosis underwent transfemoral TAVI at 2 institutions. Clinical outcomes were compared among 3 groups: (1) patients requiring PPM implantation after TAVI (PPM after TAVI), (2) patients without PPM before or after TAVI (no PPM), and (3) patients with PPM before TAVI (PPM before TAVI). The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 12 months, and an age-, sex-, and origin-matched standardized population served as controls. Results Of 353 patients, 98 patients (27.8%) belonged to the PPM after TAVI group, 48 patients (13.6%) belonged to the PPM before TAVI group, and 207 patients (58.6%) belonged to the no PPM group. The PPM before TAVI patients had a significantly higher baseline risk compared with the PPM after TAVI and no PPM patients (coronary artery disease: 77.1% vs. 52.7% and 58.2%, respectively, p = 0.009; atrial fibrillation: 43.8% vs. 22.7% and 20.4%, respectively, p = 0.005). At 12 months of follow-up, all-cause mortality was similar in all 3 groups (PPM after TAVI group: 19.4%, PPM before TAVI group: 22.9%, no PPM group: 18.0%) in unadjusted analyses (p = 0.77) and adjusted analyses (p = 0.90). Compared with the standardized population, adjusted hazard ratios for death were 2.37 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.51 to 3.72) for the PPM after TAVI group, 2.75 (95% CI: 1.52 to 4.97) for the PPM before TAVI group, and 2.24 (95% CI: 1.62 to 3.09) for the no PPM group. Conclusions Although prognosis remains impaired compared with an age-, sex-, and origin-matched standardized population, periprocedural PPM implantation does not seem to affect clinical outcomes adversely among patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI.

The Svelte (New Providence, NJ) sirolimus-eluting coronary stent utilizing a bioresorbable amino acid-based (PEA) drug carrier is mounted on a novel Integrated Delivery System (IDS) consisting of a low-compliant balloon with balloon control bands (BCBs) affixed to a 0.014 integrated wire with