Search

Maximal hyperaemia for fractional flow reserve (FFR) may not be achieved with the current recommended doses of intracoronary adenosine. Higher doses (up to 720 μg) have been reported to optimize hyperaemic stimuli in small dose-response studies. Real-world data from a large cohort of patients is needed to evaluate FFR results and the safety of high-dose escalation. This is a retrospective study aimed to evaluate the safety and frequency of FFR ≤0.8 after high-dose escalation of intracoronary adenosine. Data were extracted from the medical databases of two university hospitals. Increasing doses (100, 200, 400, 600, and 800 μg) of adenosine were administered as intracoronary boluses until FFR ≤0.8 was achieved or heart block developed. The percentage of FFR ≤0.8 after higher-dose escalation was compared with those at conventional doses, and the predictors for FFR ≤0.8 after higher doses were analysed. In the 1163 vessels of 878 patients, 402 vessels (34.6%) achieved FFR ≤0.8 at conventional doses and 623 vessels (53.6%) received high-dose escalation. An additional 84 vessels (13.5%) achieved FFR ≤0.8 after high-dose escalation. No major complications developed during high-dose escalation. Borderline FFR (0.81–0.85) at the conventional dose, stenosis >60%, and triple-vessel disease increased the likelihood of FFR ≤0.8 after high-dose escalation, but chronic kidney disease decreased it. For vessels of borderline FFR at conventional doses, 46% achieved FFR ≤0.8 after high-dose escalation. In conclusion, High-dose escalation of intracoronary adenosine increases the frequency of FFR ≤0.8 without major complications. It could be especially feasible for borderline FFR values near the 0.8 diagnostic threshold. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Restenosis remains a significant problem in endovascular therapy for hemodialysis vascular access. Drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty decreases restenosis in peripheral and coronary artery diseases. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the patency outcomes following DCB angioplasty, as compared to conventional balloon (CB) angioplasty for the stenosis of hemodialysis vascular access. Methods: A comprehensive search in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases was conducted in order to identify eligible randomized controlled trials evaluating DCB angioplasty for hemodialysis vascular access dysfunction. The primary endpoint was the 6-month target lesion primary patency and the secondary endpoints were 12-month target lesion primary patency and procedure-related complications. Risk ratios (RR) were pooled and relevant subgroups were analyzed separately. Results: Eleven randomized controlled trials comprised of 487 patients treated with DCB angioplasty and 489 patients treated with CB angioplasty were included. There were no significant differences in the target lesion primary patency at 6 months [RR, 0.75; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.56, 1.01; p = 0.06] and at 12 months (RR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.79, 1.00; p = 0.06). The absence of benefit for the DCB group remained, even in the arteriovenous fistula subgroup or the subgroup of studies excluding central vein stenosis. The risk of procedure-related complication did not differ between the two groups (RR 1.00; 95% CI 0.98, 1.02; p = 0.95). Conclusion: DCB angioplasty did not demonstrate significant patency benefit for the treatment of hemodialysis vascular access dysfunction. Wide variations in patency outcomes across studies were noted. Further studies focusing on specific types of access or lesions are warranted to clarify the value of DCB for hemodialysis vascular access. (PROSPERO Number CRD42019119938) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Little is known about the components and contributing factors of door-to-balloon time after implementation of Door-to-Balloon Alliance quality-improving (QI) strategies, including the impact of door-to-ECG time on door-to-balloon time. Objective: We investigated whether modification of emergency department (ED) triage processes could improve door-to-ECG and door-to-balloon times after implementation of QI strategies. Methods: This was a retrospective before-and-after study of a prospectively collected database. From June 2014 to October 2014, interventions were implemented in our ED, including a protocol-driven ECG initiation and moving an ECG station and technician to the triage area. The primary outcome was the percentage of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who received ECG within 10 min of arrival; the secondary outcome was the percentage of patients with door-to-balloon times of <90 min from arrival. Patients from the year pre- and post-QI initiative were defined as the control and intervention groups, respectively. Results: Enrollment comprised 214 patients with STEMI: 109 before the intervention and 105 after the intervention. We analyzed the components of the door-to-balloon process and found the door-to-ECG process was the most critical interval of delay (20.8%). Unrecognized symptoms were the most common cause of delay in the door-to-ECG process resulting in a significant impact on the door-to-balloon time. The intervention group had a higher percentage of patients with door-to-ECG times <10 min than did the control group (93.3% vs. 79.8%, p = 0.005), with a corresponding improvement in door-to-balloon times <90 min (91.1% vs. 76.2%, p = 0.007). In subgroup analysis, the intervention benefits occurred only in non-transferred or walk-in patients. After adjustment for possible co-variates, the QI interventions remained a significant contributing factor for achieving the door-to-ECG and door-to-balloon targets. Conclusions: The modification of ED triage processes through implementation of QI strategies are effective in achieving better door-to-ECG times and thus, achieving door-to-balloon times <90 min. In patients presenting with ambiguous symptoms, improved door-to ECG target achievement rates, through a protocol-driven and multidisciplinary approach allows for earlier identification of STEMI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prescription of guideline-recommended medicines after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has been suboptimal. Tools for improving the use of medications have been developed, but they mainly targeted physicians. Objective: We evaluated the effects of reinforcement of patient and family education on the usage of guideline-recommended secondary prevention medications. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively collected registry of patients with ACS who were admitted to a regional teaching hospital in Taiwan between February 2015 and April 2017. The control group included 76 patients discharged before implementing the electronic-based patient and family education (PFE) system. The intervention group included 206 patients discharged after implementation. The primary outcome was the prescription rate of all four guideline-recommended drugs. Predictors of adherence were also evaluated. Results: The study cohort included 282 ACS patients (188 men and 94 women) with a mean age of 68.5 years (standard deviation, 14.2). The intervention group patients were younger, had more family history of premature cardiovascular disease, more dyslipidemia, and underwent more reperfusion therapy. The intervention group was prescribed more guideline-recommended drugs than the control group: dual antiplatelet agents, 79.61% vs. 47.37% (p<0.001); statins, 74.76% vs. 34.21% (p<0.001); beta-blockers, 81.07% vs. 46.05% (p<0.001); angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, 62.62% vs. 38.16% (p<0.001); and a combination of all four medications, 39.32% vs. 14.47% (p<0.001). After adjusting baseline variables, the PFE system remained a significant contributor to adherence to these drugs use (P = 0.02). Conclusions: Reinforcement of patient education was associated with significant improvements in physicians' adherence to guideline-recommended medical therapy after acute coronary syndrome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]