Search

Introduction and Objectives: This article presents the annual activity report of the Interventional Cardiology Association of the Spanish Society of Cardiology (ACI-SEC) for the year 2022., Methods: All Spanish centers with catheterization laboratories were invited to participate. Data were collected online and were analyzed by an external company in collaboration with the members of the board of the ACI-SEC., Results: A total of 111 centers participated. The number of diagnostic studies increased by 4.8% compared with 2021, while that of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) remained stable. PCIs on the left main coronary artery increased by 22%. The radial approach continued to be preferred for PCI (94.9%). There was an upsurge in the use of drug-eluting balloons, as well as in intracoronary imaging techniques, which were used in 14.7% of PCIs. The use of pressure wires also increased (6.3% vs 2021) as did plaque modification techniques. Primary PCI continued to grow and was the most frequent treatment (97%) in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Most noncoronary procedures maintained their upward trend, particularly percutaneous aortic valve implantation, atrial appendage closure, mitral/tricuspid edge-to-edge therapy, renal denervation, and percutaneous treatment of pulmonary arterial disease., Conclusions: The Spanish cardiac catheterization and coronary intervention registry for 2022 reveals a rise in the complexity of coronary disease, along with a notable growth in procedures for valvular and nonvalvular structural heart disease., (Copyright © 2023 Sociedad Española de Cardiología. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Introduction and Objectives: Transaxillary access (TXA) has become the most widely used alternative to transfemoral access (TFA) in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The aim of this study was to compare total in-hospital and 30-day mortality in patients included in the Spanish TAVI registry who were treated by TXA or TFA access., Methods: We analyzed data from patients treated with TXA or TFA and who were included in the TAVI Spanish registry. In-hospital and 30-day events were defined according to the recommendations of the Valve Academic Research Consortium. The impact of the access route was evaluated by propensity score matching according to clinical and echocardiogram characteristics., Results: A total of 6603 patients were included; 191 (2.9%) were treated via TXA and 6412 via TFA access. After adjustment (n=113 TXA group and n=3035 TFA group) device success was similar between the 2 groups (94%, TXA vs 95%, TFA; P=.95). However, compared with the TFA group, the TXA group showed a higher rate of acute myocardial infarction (OR, 5.3; 95%CI, 2.0-13.8); P=.001), renal complications (OR, 2.3; 95%CI, 1.3-4.1; P=.003), and pacemaker implantation (OR, 1.6; 95%CI, 1.01-2.6; P=.03). The TXA group also had higher in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates (OR, 2.2; 95%CI, 1.04-4.6; P=.039 and OR, 2.3; 95%CI, 1.2-4.5; P=.01, respectively)., Conclusions: Compared with ATF, TXA is associated with higher total mortality, both in-hospital and at 30 days. Given these results, we believe that TXA should be considered only in those patients who are not suitable candidates for TFA., (Copyright © 2021 Sociedad Española de Cardiología. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Introduction and Objectives: The COVID-19 outbreak has had an unclear impact on the treatment and outcomes of patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The aim of this study was to assess changes in STEMI management during the COVID-19 outbreak., Methods: Using a multicenter, nationwide, retrospective, observational registry of consecutive patients who were managed in 75 specific STEMI care centers in Spain, we compared patient and procedural characteristics and in-hospital outcomes in 2 different cohorts with 30-day follow-up according to whether the patients had been treated before or after COVID-19., Results: Suspected STEMI patients treated in STEMI networks decreased by 27.6% and patients with confirmed STEMI fell from 1305 to 1009 (22.7%). There were no differences in reperfusion strategy (> 94% treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention in both cohorts). Patients treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention during the COVID-19 outbreak had a longer ischemic time (233 [150-375] vs 200 [140-332] minutes, P<.001) but showed no differences in the time from first medical contact to reperfusion. In-hospital mortality was higher during COVID-19 (7.5% vs 5.1%; unadjusted OR, 1.50; 95%CI, 1.07-2.11; P <.001); this association remained after adjustment for confounders (risk-adjusted OR, 1.88; 95%CI, 1.12-3.14; P=.017). In the 2020 cohort, there was a 6.3% incidence of confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during hospitalization., Conclusions: The number of STEMI patients treated during the current COVID-19 outbreak fell vs the previous year and there was an increase in the median time from symptom onset to reperfusion and a significant 2-fold increase in the rate of in-hospital mortality. No changes in reperfusion strategy were detected, with primary percutaneous coronary intervention performed for the vast majority of patients. The co-existence of STEMI and SARS-CoV-2 infection was relatively infrequent., (Copyright © 2020 Sociedad Española de Cardiología. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Introduction and Objectives: We sought to compare the long-term clinical outcome of with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with paclitaxel-eluting stents or everolimus-eluting stents and the influence of thrombectomy on outcomes., Methods: The ESTROFA-IM is a multicenter retrospective registry collecting consecutive patients with infarction treated with these stents in 16 centers. Propensity-score matching was performed to select comparable stent groups and comparable groups with and without thrombectomy., Results: After matching patients, 350 treated with everolimus-eluting stents and 350 with paclitaxel-eluting stents were included in the analysis. The clinical and angiographic characteristics were comparable in both groups. The 2-year incidence of death, infarction, and target lesion revascularization was 14.9% for paclitaxel-eluting stents and 11.5% for everolimus-eluting stents (P = .04) and the incidence of definite/probable thrombosis 4.3% and 1.4%, respectively (P = .01). The use of paclitaxel-eluting was an independent predictor for events (hazard ratio = 2.44, 95% confidence interval, 1.28-4.65; P = .006). The benefit of everolimus-eluting stents over paclitaxel-eluting stents regarding stent thrombosis was more evident in the nonthrombectomy subgroup (5.4% vs 1.4%; P = .01). A significant interaction was found in the subgroups with and without thombectomy in the comparison between paclitaxel-eluting stents and everolimus-eluting stents for the end-point of stent thrombosis (P = .039)., Conclusions: The results of this multicenter registry suggest better clinical outcomes with the everolimus-eluting stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. The lower risk of thrombosis with these stents could be more relevant in the absence of thrombectomy., (Copyright © 2014 Sociedad Española de Cardiología. Published by Elsevier Espana. All rights reserved.)