Search

Sažetak Background: Provisional stenting is a favorable option for most bifurcation lesions, while two stent techniques show benefits in true bifurcation performed by experts. Using one stent and DCB in true bifurcation lesions still remains questionable.1, 2 Case report: 76-year-old male presented with persisting chest pain. ECG showed no specific ischemic changes, while hsTnI was highly elevated. He had gone PCI LAD 14 years ago. Diagnosis: right coronary angiography revealed occlusion of RCA, while left coronary angiography revealed LLS of 20% in proximal LAD stent, 70% stenosis of mid LAD, and acute occlusion of secondary OM branch on bifurcation level, while CxA was stenosed 70-80%. Management: PCI CxA-OM2 was performed with DES Xience expedition 2, 75/33mm in CxA-OM2 with POT 3, 25/12mm proximally, then after rewiring and adequate lesion preparation a DEB Sequent please 2, 5/25mm in CxA distally was performed. After two months we performed an elective PCI LAD and checked out the result of CxA bifurcation which was optimal. Conclusion: Using one stent and DCB in true bifurcation lesions still remains questionable. There are no data from a prospective study, while there are data from the observational study which enrolled 130 patients. DCB-only strategy was performed in 54% patients, 34.6% had at least one stent in the main branch, 8.5% had at least one stent in the side branch and 3.1% at least one stent in the main branch and side branch. Study follow up lasted for 9.8 months. The TLR rate was 4.5%, MACE was 6.1%, and no stent thrombosis was detected. This study suggested that the DCB+one stent, and DCB-only strategy was safe and effective in selected bifurcations, possibly allowing for an abbreviated antiplatelet regimen.

Introduction: There are limited study data available of the effects of peripheral artery disease (PAD) on patients undergoing chronic total occlusion (CTO) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). According to the PROGRESS-CTO Registry results patients with PAD undergoing CTO PCI have more comorbidities, more complex lesions and lower procedural success.1-3 We present the case of successful opening in stent CTO lesion of right coronary artery (RCA) in patient with PAD. Case report: 59-year-old man with a known history of a coronary vessel disease and PAD presented to our department due to frequent episodes of chest pain under minimal exercise and claudication and pain in the buttocks. The coronary angiography showed unchanged exam in left coronary basin. The RCA was completely occluded in segment two right in the area of the stent that was implanted eight years before. We found collaterals from the left coronary artery system and signs of calcification and autocollaterals for the distal segment of RCA, so the diagnostically criteria of a CTO were fulfilled. Because of the present symptoms of the patient and evidence for vital myocardium by echocardiography and myocardial scintigraphy revascularization of the CTO was performed. An AL 0.75 6F guidance catheter was used and the standard antegrade wire escalation technique attempted. A Turnpike Spiral catheter was inserted with the help of a ASAHI Fielder XT-A wire which was exchanged to an ASAHI Gaia Second which allowed the successful recanalization. Balloon angioplasty was performed with Abbot Traveler 1.5/15mm, Medtronic Euphora 2.57/15mm. Two sirolimus eluting stents (Terumo Ultimaster 3.0/38 mm and Ultimaster 3.0/30 mm) were successfully implanted with very good angiographic result. Three months later, chronic total occlusion of the left external iliac artery was treated successfully by percutaneous intervention and control coronary angiography showed unchanged exam in RCA. Conclusion: Our experience in this case demonstrates the feasibility of recanalization of an in-stent CTO in the patient with PAD and three months follow up showed improved of angina and quality of life. There is a definite and strong correlation between PAD and CAD. A concurrent PAD diagnosis is associated with higher rates of adverse outcomes following CTO PCI which requires additional monitoring.

The acute coronary syndrome (ACS) network is a complex system of concern for patients with acute coronary syndrome. In order to provide adequate patient care, reduce total mortality and irrational costs of treatment, we need varied algorithms and a patient concern protocols. Outhospital emergency medical services, intrahospital emergency rooms, and coronary care units in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and nonPCI centers participate in the care of ACS patients. Therefore, only algorithms adapted to each of these levels can improve the protocol for patient care. By standardized protocol implementation since January 2016, we compared the results with respect to the total number of patients before the protocol was applied. We analyzed the total number of patients, the relationship between the number of transferred and non-transferred patients, the intra-hospital mortality as well as the total mortality for ST- elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction patients (NSTEMI). The results show that the standardized protocol increases the total number of PCIs in patients with ACS, namely 36% for STEMI and 20% for NSTEMI. However, the total mortality of STEMI patients has increased from 5.2% to 6.9%, which is a consequence of an increased number of patients with cardiogenic shock (2.5% to 7.8%), as well as inappropriately high rates of transfer time from nonPCI hospitals (average time was 160 min). In patients with NSTEMI we recorded an increase in the total number of patients by 20%, while total mortality rate has not been changed. However, we should point out a favorable trend in the increase of PCI within 72 hours in NSTEMI patients. The standardized protocol, along with other organizational improvements, has led to the primary goal of increasing the number of primary PCIs in STEMI and PCI at ACS-NSTEMI at an early stage. It has also revealed the need for additional effort to increase the quality of treatment in terms of reducing patient delay time, proper recognition of STEMI by the outhospital emergency services, as well as the need to reduce transport time for transferred patients. If a transfer within 120 minutes cannot be provided we recommend pharmacoinvasive approach to be applied.

Postperikardiotomni sindrom (PPS) je klinicki sindrom koji nastaje u sklopu autoimune upalne reakcije perikarda i pleure, a klinicki se manifestira novonastalim ili pogorsanjem prisutnog perikardijalnog ili pleuralnog izljeva. Javlja se od prvog do sestog tjedna nakon kardiokiruskih zahvata i spada među najcesce komplikacije kardijalne kirurgije. Ucestalost pojavnosti bolesti je raznolika od 2-30% i ovisi o tipu kardiokirurskog zahvata.1-3 Retrospektivnom analizom PPS registra u Opcoj bolnici “Dr. Josip Bencevic” Slavonski Brod u razdoblju od 1. ožujka 2009. do 1. listopada 2015. godine ucestalost PPS- a sveukupno, neovisno o tipu kardiokiruskog zahvata, iznosila je 10, 1 % , dok je ucestalost PPS-a kod bolesnika podvrgnutih kirurgiji aortne valvule iznosila 26 %. Rutinskim probirom bolesnika dva do cetiri tjedna iza operativnog zahvata moguce je na osnovu jednostavnih dijagnostic- kih kriterija postaviti dijagnozu i zapoceti adekvatno lijecenje, s postizanjem remisije u vise od 95 % bolesnika. U dijagnostici bolesti povisen CRP i febrilitet imaju snažnu prediktivnu vrijednost te su uz prisutnost pleuralnog/perikardijalnog izljeva dovoljni kriteriji za dijagnozu bolesti. Lijecenje se provodi primjenom NSAR, kolhicina ili kortikosteroidima. Profilakticka primjena kolhicina prema COPPS studiji smanjuje ucestalost pojave PPS. Iako za sada nema jasnih preporuka za profilaksu, prema nasem istraživanju, identifikacija bolesnika s visokim rizikom na osnovu tipa operacije, dobi i drugih klinickih parametara podupire hipotezu o korisnosti profilakse.

Introduction and goal: The latest 2011 non-ST- segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE- ACS) management guidelines indicated that all patients should receive anticoagulation drugs irrespective of the treatment strategy. In this report, 2-year data on anticoagulation therapies for NSTE-ACS are presented, in relation to invasive management selection and treatment outcomes in a clinical setting without registered bivalirudin. Patients and Methods: Data for 374 patients with NSTEACS treated in the Coronary Care Unit in General Hospital Slavonski Brod, Croatia were analyzed from January 2012 to December 2013. Treatment strategies, outcomes and complications among patients treated with different anticoagulation agents (enoxaparine, fondaparinux or unfractionated heparin) were analyzed and compared. Results: In all, 72% of all NSTE-ACS patients were treated invasively, out of which 66% underwent angiography within 72 hours. Urgent and early angiography was performed in 44% of all invasively treated patients. Generally, 58% and 5% of patients received enoxaparine and unfractionated heparin (UFH), respectively, whereas fondaparinux was administered in 37% of patients. Median age of patients treated with enoxaparine was 66, compared to 76 in the fondaparinux group. There were significantly more patients treated with enoxaparine and UFH than with fondaparinux in the invasive strategy group. We observed that the number of patients treated with fondaparinux in the invasive group increased together with the period between symptom onset and angiography. The number of patients treated conservatively with either fondaparinux or enoxaparine was almost equal. There were no patients treated conservatively with UFH. In general, in-hospital mortality was low, 2.6% with no significant differences in bleeding events regarding the selection of anticoagulation therapy. Conclusions: Although the guidelines gave preference to fondaparinux, everyday practice in our hospital showed that enoxaparine was a preferred agent, particularly in younger patients selected for early invasive strategy, most probably because of the risk/benefit ratio and opportunity of avoiding the mixing of anticoagulation agents. Only 5% of patients were selected for urgent invasive approach with UFH, which should probably increase in the future. Considering a higher cost of bivalirudin, the introduction of this agent for non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction management does not seem to be mandatory in our clinical setting, since this small group of patients was adequately managed with UFH.