Search

Objectives: Compared with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients, non-STEMI (NSTEMI) patients have more comorbidities and extensive coronary artery disease. Contemporary comparative data on the long-term prognosis of stable post-myocardial infarction subtypes are needed., Design: Long-Term rIsk, clinical manaGement and healthcare Resource utilisation of stable coronary artery dISease (TIGRIS) was a multinational, observational and longitudinal cohort study., Setting: Patients were enrolled from 350 centres, with >95% coming from cardiology practices across 24 countries, from 19 June 2013 to 31 March 2017., Participants: This study enrolled 8277 stable patients 1-3 years after myocardial infarction with ≥1 additional risk factor., Outcome Measures: Over a 2 year follow-up, cardiovascular events and deaths and self-reported health using the EuroQol 5-dimension questionnaire score were recorded. Relative risk of clinical events and health resource utilisation in STEMI and NSTEMI patients were compared using multivariable Poisson regression models, adjusting for prognostically relevant patient factors., Results: Of 7752 patients with known myocardial infarction type, 46% had NSTEMI; NSTEMI patients were older with more comorbidities than STEMI patients. NSTEMI patients had significantly poorer self-reported health and lower prevalence of dual antiplatelet therapy at hospital discharge and at enrolment 1-3 years later. NSTEMI patients had a higher incidence of combined myocardial infarction, stroke and cardiovascular death (5.6% vs 3.9%, p<0.001) and higher all-cause mortality (4.2% vs 2.6%, p<0.001) compared with STEMI patients. Risks were attenuated after adjusting for other patient characteristics. Health resource utilisation was higher in NSTEMI patients, although STEMI patients had more cardiologist visits., Conclusions: Post-NSTEMI chronic coronary syndrome patients had a less favourable risk factor profile, poorer self-reported health and more adverse cardiovascular events during long-term follow-up than individuals post STEMI. Efforts are needed to recognise the risks of stable patients after NSTEMI and optimise secondary prevention and care., Trial Registration Number: NCT01866904., Competing Interests: Competing interests: SP and RO have received research grant support from AstraZeneca. SGG has received speaker/consulting honoraria and/or research grant support from Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol‑Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo/American Regent, Eli Lilly, Esperion, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, HLS Therapeutics, JAMP Pharma, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk A/C, Pendopharm/Pharmascience, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Servier, Valeo Pharma and salary support/honoraria from the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario/University of Toronto (Polo) Chair, Canadian Heart Research Centre and MD Primer, Canadian VIGOUR Centre, Cleveland Clinic Coordinating Centre for Clinical Research, Duke Clinical Research Institute, New York University Clinical Coordinating Centre, PERFUSE Research Institute, TIMI Study Group (Brigham Health). CBG has received consulting honoraria and/or research grant support from Armetheon, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen, Medtronic, Pfizer, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Takeda and The Medicines Company. JCN has received speaker/consulting honoraria and/or research grant support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, CSL Behringer, DalCor, Esperion, Janssen, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Servier and Vifor. TS has received speaker/consulting honoraria and/or research grant support from Astellas, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer and Sanofi. DW has received speaker/consulting honoraria and/or research grant support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie, Biotronik and Novartis. SY has received speaker/consulting honoraria and/or research grant support from Takeda, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim. DB has received speaker/consulting honoraria and/or research grant support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, BMS, Eli Lilly, Merck and Sanofi. MGC has received speaker/consulting honoraria and/or research grant support from AstraZeneca, Medtronic, Abiomed and Merit Medical. KA and PRH are employees of AstraZeneca. GB-W was an employee of AstraZeneca at the time of this study. SNK and PK declare no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Aim: The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use., Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered., Structure: Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline., (Copyright © 2022 The American College of Cardiology Foundation and the American Heart Association, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Evidence is lacking on long-term outcomes in unselected patients surviving the first year following myocardial infarction (MI)., Methods and Results: The TIGRIS (long-Term rIsk, clinical manaGement and healthcare Resource utilization of stable coronary artery dISease in post-myocardial infarction patients) prospective registry enrolled 9176 eligible patients aged ≥50 years, 1-3 years post-MI, from 25 countries. All had ≥1 risk factor: age ≥ 65 years, diabetes mellitus, second prior MI, multivessel coronary artery disease, chronic kidney disease (CKD). Primary outcome was a composite of MI, unstable angina with urgent revascularization, stroke, or all-cause death at 2-year follow-up. Bleeding requiring hospitalization was also recorded. 9027 patients (98.4%) provided follow-up data: the primary outcome occurred in 621 (7.0%), all-cause mortality in 295 (3.3%), and bleeding in 109 (1.2%) patients. Events accrued linearly over time. In multivariable analyses, qualifying risk factors were associated with increased risk of primary outcome (incidence rate ratio [RR] per 100 patient-years [95% confidence interval]): CKD 2.06 (1.66, 2.55), second prior MI 1.71 (1.38, 2.10), diabetes mellitus 1.63 (1.39, 1.92), age ≥ 65 years 1.53 (1.28, 1.83), and multivessel disease 1.24 (1.05, 1.48). Risk of bleeding events was greater in older patients (vs <65 years) 65-74 years 2.68 (1.53, 4.70), ≥75 years 4.62 (2.57, 8.28), and those with CKD 1.99 (1.18, 3.35)., Conclusion: In stable patients recruited 1-3 years post-MI, recurrent cardiovascular and bleeding events accrued linearly over 2 years. Factors independently predictive of ischemic and bleeding events were identified, providing a context for deciding on treatment options., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest D.B. Speaker/consulting honoraria and/or research grant support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Company, Merck, Novartis, Sanofi. S.J.P. Statistical consulting honoraria from AstraZeneca. S.B. Speaker/consulting honoraria and/or research grant support from Abbott, Abbott Diagnostics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Siemens, Siemens Diagnostics, Thermo Fisher Scientific. J.-Y.C. Research grant support from AstraZeneca; consulting honoraria from MicroPort, APT Medical and JW Medical. M.G.C. Speaker/consulting honoraria and/or research grant support from AstraZeneca, Medtronic, Abiomed, Merit Medical. C.B.G. Consulting honoraria and/or research grant support from Armetheon, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly and Company, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Metronic, Pfizer, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Sanofi, Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, The Medicines Company. R.G. None. J.C.N. Speaker/consulting honoraria and/or research grant support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, CLS Behring, Pfizer, Sanofi. T.S. Speaker/consulting honoraria and/or research grant support from Astellas, Amgen Inc., AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly and Company, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Sanofi. D.W. Speaker/consulting honoraria and/or research grant support from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Berlin-Chemie, Biotronik, Novartis. S.Y. Speaker/consulting honoraria and/or research grant support from Takeda Pharmaceutical Company, Daiichi-Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb. J.G. Grants from AstraZeneca during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. K.L.R. Employee of OXON Epidemiology Ltd., and paid consultant to AstraZeneca in connection with the conduct, data management and analyses of this study. K.H. Employee of AstraZeneca. K.A.S. Employee of AstraZeneca. S.G.G. Speaker/consulting honoraria and/or research grant support from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly and Company, Fenix Group International, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen/Johnson & Johnson, Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Matrizyme, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, Servier, Tenax Pharmaceuticals, HLS Therapeutics, Novo-Nordisk., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Previous studies comparing outcomes between culprit vessel only percutaneous coronary intervention (CV-PCI) versus multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention (MV-PCI) in patients with cardiogenic shock in the setting of acute myocardial infarction have shown conflicting results. This meta-analysis investigates the optimal approach for management of these patients considering recently published data., Methods: Electronic databases including MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Library were searched for all clinical studies published until May 1, 2018, which compared outcomes in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. Studies comparing CV-PCI versus MV-PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease were screened for inclusion in final analysis. The primary end point was in-hospital/30 day mortality. Secondary endpoints included long term (>6 months) mortality, renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy, stroke, bleeding, and recurrent myocardial infarction. Odds ratio (OR) with 95% of confidence interval (CI) were computed and p values <0.05 were considered significant., Results: Patient who underwent CV-PCI had significantly lower short-term mortality (in-hospital or 30-day mortality) (OR: 0.73, CI: 0.61-0.87, p = 0.0005), and lower odds of severe renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy (OR: 0.76, CI: 0.59-0.98, p = 0.03). There was no statistically significant difference in long-term mortality, stroke, bleeding, and recurrent myocardial infarction between two groups., Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed lower short-term mortality and decreased odds of renal failure requiring renal replacement therapy with CV-PCI compared to MV-PCI. However, subgroup analysis including studies exclusively assessing STEMI patients revealed no statistically significant difference in outcomes. Further randomized trials are needed to confirm these findings and evaluate long term results., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Over the recent years, there has been increased interest in the use of transradial (TR) access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), including rotational atherectomy (RA). However, a large proportion of operators seem to be reluctant to use TR access for complex PCI including rotational atherectomy for heavily calcified coronary lesions., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the Cochrane Library for studies comparing radial versus femoral access in patients undergoing RA. Studies were included if they reported at least one of the following outcomes in each group separately: major adverse cardiac events (MACE), major bleeding, stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction (MI), hospital length of stay, radiation exposure, procedure time, procedure success and all-cause mortality. Odds ratio (OR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated and a p-value of <0.05 was considered as a level of significance., Results: This meta-analysis included 5 retrospective studies with 3315 patients undergoing RA via radial access and 5838 patients via femoral access. Radial access was associated with lower major access site bleeding (OR: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.31-0.67, p < 0.001), and radiation exposure (MD: -16.1, 95%CI: -25.4--6.7 Gy cm 2 , p = 0.0007). There were no significant differences observed in all-cause in-hospital mortality (OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.69-1.23, p = 0.58); MACE (OR: 0.80, CI: 0.63, 1.02, p = 0.08), stent thrombosis (OR: 0.28, 95%CI: 0.06-1.33 p = 0.11); and MI (OR: 0.43, 95%CI: 0.15-1.24, p = 0.12). There were no significant differences in hospital stay, procedure time or procedure success between the two groups (p > 0.05)., Conclusion: This meta-analysis of 9153 patients from observational studies demonstrates similar all-cause mortality, MACE, procedural success and procedural time during RA performed using TR access and TF access. However, TR access was associated with decreased access site bleeding and radiation exposure. Given the observational nature of these findings, a randomized controlled trial is warranted for further evidence., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Advanced liver disease is a risk factor for cardiac surgery. However, liver dysfunction is not included in cardiac risk assessment models. We sought to identify trends in utilization, complications, and outcomes of patients with cirrhosis who underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG). Using the National Inpatient Sample database, we identified patients with cirrhosis who underwent CABG from 2002 to 2014. Propensity-score matching was used to identify differences in in-hospital mortality and postoperative complications in cirrhosis and noncirrhosis patients. We identified a total of 698,799 CABG admissions of which 2,231 (0.3%) had cirrhosis (mean age 63.6 ± 9.6 years, 74% men, 63% white, mean Charlson co-morbidity index 3.3 ± 1.8). Cardiopulmonary bypass was used in 71% of patients. Mean length of stay was 13.7 ± 11.4 days and hospitalization cost $67,744.6 ± 58,320.4. One or more complications occurred in 44% of cases. After propensity-score matching, patients with cirrhosis had a higher rate of complications (43.9% vs 38.93%; p < 0.001) and in-hospital mortality (7.2% vs 4.07%; p < 0.001) than noncirrhosis patients. On multivariate analysis, cirrhosis and ascites were associated with increased in-hospital mortality (odds ratio 2.87; 95% confidence intervals 2.37 to 3.48) and postoperative complications (odds ratio 5.11; 95% confidence intervals 3.88 to 6.72). In conclusion, patients with cirrhosis constitute a small portion of patients who underwent CABG in the United States but have a higher rate of complications and in-hospital mortality compared with noncirrhosis patients. In-hospital mortality remains high for this subset of patients but has decreased in recent years., (Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has emerged as a less-invasive therapeutic option for high surgical risk patients with aortic stenosis and coronary artery disease. The aim of this study was to determine the outcomes of TAVR when performed with PCI during the same hospitalization. We identified patients using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification procedure codes from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample between the years 2011 and 2013. A total of 22,344 TAVRs were performed between 2011 and 2013. Of these, 21,736 (97.3%) were performed without PCI (TAVR group) while 608 (2.7%) along with PCI (TAVR + PCI group). Among the TAVR + PCI group, 69.7% of the patients had single-vessel, 22.2% had 2-vessel, and 1.6% had 3-vessel PCI. Drug-eluting stents were more commonly used than bare-metal stents (72% vs 28%). TAVR + PCI group witnessed significantly higher rates of mortality (10.7% vs 4.6%) and complications: vascular injury requiring surgery (8.2% vs 4.2%), cardiac (25.4% vs 18.6%), respiratory (24.6% vs 16.1%), and infectious (10.7% vs 3.3%), p <0.001% for all, compared with the TAVR group. The mean length of hospital stay and cost of hospitalization were also significantly higher in the TAVR + PCI group. The propensity score-matched analysis yielded similar results. In conclusion, performing PCI along with TAVR during the same hospital admission is associated with higher mortality, complications, and cost compared with TAVR alone. Patients would perhaps be better served by staged PCI before TAVR., (Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

The objective of our study was to assess patients with end-stage liver disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and determine the rates and trend of complications and in-hospital outcomes. Data were obtained from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample 2005 to 2012. We identified all PCIs performed in patients with diagnosis of cirrhosis during the study period by the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. Preventable procedural complications were identified by Patient Safety Indicators. Propensity scoring method was used to establish matched cohorts to control for imbalances and account for differences that may have influenced treatment outcomes. A total of 1,051,242 PCIs were performed during the study period, of these, 122,342 were done on subjects with a formal diagnosis of cirrhosis. Bare-metal stents (BMS) were more likely to be used in patients who presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (19.73 vs 13.58, p <0.001), in cardiogenic shock (5.58, vs 2.81, p <0.001), or required intraaortic balloon pump (4.73 vs 2.38, p <0.001). The overall rate of complications was 7.1%, whereas the overall mortality rate over these years was 3.63%. On a propensity-matched analysis the mortality rate was 2 times higher for BMS (5.18 vs 2.35, p <0.001) compared with drug-eluting stents. PCI remains a safe and plausible option for patients with cirrhosis albeit riskier than for the general population. The use of BMS is associated with increased mortality and bleeding complications compared with drug-eluting stents which likely is representative of preferential use of BMS in patients with more advanced end-stage liver disease who are also likely to experience higher postprocedural complications., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: High-risk percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) supported by percutaneous left ventricular assist devices offers a treatment option for patients with severe symptoms, complex and extensive coronary artery disease, and multiple comorbidities. The extrapolation from clinical trial to real-world practice has inherent uncertainties. We compared the characteristics, procedures, and outcomes of high-risk PCI supported by a microaxial pump (Impella 2.5) in a multicenter registry versus the randomized PROTECT II trial (NCT00562016)., Methods: The USpella registry is an observational multicenter voluntary registry of Impella technology. A total of 637 patients treated between June 2007 and September 2013 were included. Of them, 339 patients would have met enrollment criteria for the PROTECT II trial. These were compared with 216 patients treated in the Impella arm of PROTECT II., Results: Compared to the clinical trial, registry patients were older (70 ± 11.5 vs 67.5 ± 11.0 years); more likely to have chronic kidney disease (30% vs 22.7%), prior myocardial infarction (69.3% vs 56.5%), or prior bypass surgery (39.4% vs. 30.2%); and had similar prevalence of diabetes, peripheral vascular disease, and prior stroke. Registry patients had more extensive coronary artery disease (2.2 vs 1.8 diseased vessels) and had a similar Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality. At hospital discharge, registry patients experienced a similar reduction in New York Heart Association class III to IV symptoms compared to trial patients. Registry patients had a trend toward lower in-hospital mortality (2.7% vs 4.6, P = .27)., Conclusions: USpella provides a real-world and contemporary estimation of the type of procedures and outcomes of high-risk patients undergoing PCI supported by Impella 2.5. Despite the higher risk of registry patients, clinical outcomes appeared to be favorable and consistent compared with the randomized trial., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose of Review: Optimal anticoagulation is needed to prevent ischemic complications during percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). The efficacy and safety of new anticoagulants to support PCI in different clinical scenarios have been evaluated in large clinical trials. This review summarizes the major issues and current practices for anticoagulation during PCI., Recent Findings: It is known that thrombotic events during PCI correlate with poor prognosis. However, the prognostic impact of bleeding is similar or even worse compared with ischemic complications. Therefore, the use of more predictable anticoagulants and safe practices in the catheterization laboratory to balance ischemia and bleeding is an important goal. Mindful of this notion, new anticoagulants with a safer profile, such as bivalirudin, have become popular to avoid bleeding. However, this paradigm shift has resulted in increased rates of acute stent thrombosis after primary PCI., Summary: Individual factors associated with increased bleeding risk should be considered in the choice of anticoagulants during PCI. It is now known that the higher bleeding risk observed with heparin-based regimens can be attributed to excessive doses or concomitant use of glycoprotein IIbIIIa inhibitors. In addition to the right anticoagulant choice, operators can avoid bleeding by implementing transradial access and ultrasound-guided and fluoroscopic-guided vascular access.

Background: The relationship between operator or institutional volume and outcomes among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) is unclear., Methods and Results: Cross-sectional study based on the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project's Nationwide Inpatient Sample between 2005 to 2009. Subjects were identified by International Classification of Diseases, 9(th) Revision, Clinical Modification procedure code, 36.06 and 36.07. Annual operator and institutional volumes were calculated using unique identification numbers and then divided into quartiles. Three-level hierarchical multivariate mixed models were created. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality; secondary outcome was a composite of in-hospital mortality and peri-procedural complications. A total of 457,498 PCIs were identified representing a total of 2,243,209 PCIs performed in the United States during the study period. In-hospital, all-cause mortality was 1.08%, and the overall complication rate was 7.10%. The primary and secondary outcomes of procedures performed by operators in 4(th) [annual procedural volume; primary and secondary outcomes] [>100; 0.59% and 5.51%], 3(rd) [45-100; 0.87% and 6.40%], and 2(nd) quartile [16-44; 1.15% and 7.75%] were significantly less (P<0.001) when compared with those by operators in the 1(st) quartile [≤15; 1.68% and 10.91%]. Spline analysis also showed significant operator and institutional volume outcome relationship. Similarly operators in the higher quartiles witnessed a significant reduction in length of hospital stay and cost of hospitalization (P<0.001)., Conclusions: Overall in-hospital mortality after PCI was low. An increase in operator and institutional volume of PCI was found to be associated with a decrease in adverse outcomes, length of hospital stay, and cost of hospitalization., (© 2014 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Objective: To study rotational atherectomy (RA) outcomes in patients undergoing high-risk PCI randomized to receive hemodynamic support using either IABP or Impella 2.5 in the PROTECT II trial., Background: RA of heavily calcified lesions is often necessary for complex PCI but can be associated with slow-flow, hypotension, and higher risk of periprocedural MI., Methods: We compared baseline, angiographic, procedural characteristics, and outcomes of patients treated with and without RA. We examined also RA technique and outcomes., Results: RA was used in 52 of 448 patients (32 with Impella vs 20 with IABP, P = 0.08). RA patients were older (72 vs. 67 yo, P = 0.0009), more likely to have prior CABG (48 vs. 32%, P = 0.017), higher STS (8.1 vs. 5.7, P = 0.012) and higher SYNTAX scores (37 vs. 29, P < 0.0001). At 90 days, RA use was associated with higher incidence of MI but no mortality difference. RA was used more aggressively with Impella resulting in higher rate of periprocedural MI (P < 0.01), with no difference in mortality between groups (P = 0.78). Repeat revascularization occurred less frequently with Impella (P < 0.001). There were no differences in 90-day major adverse events between IABP and Impella in patients undergoing RA (P = 0.29). In patients not treated with RA, fewer MAEs were observed with Impella compared with IABP (P = 0.03)., Conclusions: Patients who were treated with RA had more comorbidities, and more complex and extensive coronary artery disease. In patients with Impella, more aggressive RA use resulted in fewer revascularization events but higher incidence of periprocedural MI., (Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Transradial catheterization is associated with lower complication rates; however limited information is available regarding techniques to overcome unusual complications. We present a case of a 58-year-old male with suspected non-ST-elevated myocardial infarction who underwent transradial coronary angiography complicated by guidewire embolization into the radial artery and subsequent access loss. Successful retrieval of the embolized guidewire was achieved by re-accessing the same radial artery and the use of a 2 mm gooseneck microsnare. This technique was safe and prevented the need for surgical intervention or femoral access for retrieval, which are commonly described in the literature and can result in additional complications., (Copyright © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Introduction: Despite known associations between obesity and cardiovascular disease, the relationship between obesity as reflected by body mass index (BMI) and angiographic coronary artery disease (CAD) is not fully understood. Moreover, this relationship has not been adequately defined in black patients, a group demonstrated to have lower rates of angiographic CAD despite higher rates of CAD risk factors, cardiovascular events, and CAD-related mortality., Methods: Using an angiography database from an academic hospital, we studied patients undergoing first-time, nonemergent coronary angiography. From this cohort, we selected those without previous CAD diagnosis and with complete anthropomorphic measures and outcome data. Using models that controlled for patient demographics and CAD risk factors, we compared rates of angiographic CAD for blacks and whites by BMI., Results: Black patients had higher rates of CAD risk factors, including obesity and morbid obesity. Nevertheless, black patients were less likely to have a significant stenosis than white patients. Morbid obesity was associated with significantly less CAD in both race groups. Controlling for black-white differences in BMI and the prevalence of morbid obesity did not change the odds ratio for CAD among black patients., Conclusions: Racial differences in BMI and prevalence of morbid obesity do not contribute to black-white differences in CAD detected during elective angiography. The paradoxical association of morbid obesity with a lower burden of atherosclerosis may be attributed in part to the limitations of noninvasive screening in the morbidly obese and subsequent referral of patients without disease for angiography., (Copyright © 2014 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Transradial access may be advantageous for patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD) who need to undergo left heart catheterization (LHC). We aimed to assess the safety of transradial cardiac catheterization in patients listed for orthotopic liver transplantation., Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of consecutive adult patients with the diagnosis of ESLD, who underwent LHC via transradial access as part of a pre-operative liver transplantation evaluation. All the patients also underwent right heart catheterization (RHC) via brachial or femoral vein. The primary outcome measure was procedure-related major bleeding. Secondary outcomes included access site minor bleeding, in-hospital mortality, radial access failure, and acute kidney injury., Results: A total of 82 consecutive patients with ESLD, who underwent LHC via transradial access, were enrolled in the study. All patients also underwent RHC (n = 45 via brachial and n = 37 via femoral vein). The median age was 59 (54, 67) years old, and 58% were male. History of coronary artery disease or heart failure was present in 17% of patients. The median MELD score was 19 (13, 24.5), baseline hemoglobin was 10.5 mg/dL (9.4, 11.8), INR was 1.4 (1.2, 1.8) and platelets were 74,000 (53,000, 117,000)/mm(3) . The most common etiology of liver failure was viral hepatitis (51%), followed by alcoholic cirrhosis (24%) and non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (21%). Angiographically significant coronary artery disease was present in 17 (21%) patients. Major bleeding and acute kidney injury each occurred in two patients (2.4%). There were no instances of vascular complications. There were no deaths attributable to complications from cardiac catheterization., Conclusion: Upper extremity right and left heart catheterization appears to be a safe method to evaluate coronary anatomy and hemodynamics in a severely ill population of patients with ESLD awaiting transplant., (Copyright © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Background: The long-term benefits of coronary revascularization are proportional to the severity of underlying coronary artery disease (CAD). We sought to identify patients with a greater probability of severe CAD to target those who could receive the greatest benefit from revascularization., Methods: We used multivariable logistic generalized estimating equations modeling to identify clinical factors associated with severe CAD in 83,490 patients, without prior bypass surgery, who underwent coronary angiography after presenting with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes enrolled in CRUSADE. We then compared actual patterns of cardiac catheterization use relative to patients' probability of severe CAD in those who underwent catheterization and those who did not., Results: Independent factors associated with severe CAD included older age, male sex, diabetes, no prior percutaneous coronary intervention, signs or history of heart failure, prior myocardial infarction, ST-segment depression, and family history of CAD. Cardiac catheterization rates were inversely related to the probability of severe CAD as estimated by the model., Conclusions: There is a misalignment in the use of cardiac catheterization in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes relative to their predicted probability of severe CAD. The use of catheterization appears to target patients who would derive less benefit from revascularization. Further quality improvement efforts should promote appropriate use of cardiac catheterization procedures among patients with the greatest potential benefit.

BackgroundBlack patients in the United States undergoing angiography for suspected coronary artery disease (CAD) have consistently been found to have less disease than whites. As the effects of hypertension are greater in blacks than whites, and hypertensive heart disease may mimic CAD and lead to catheterization, we examined the association between race and hypertension as an explanation for the disparities in angiographic CAD.MethodsUsing an academic hospital's institutional database, we studied patients undergoing first-time elective angiography from 2001 to 2008. Using multivariable logistic regression with data on patient demographics, CAD risk factors, and coronary stenoses, we compared rates of angiographic disease for blacks and whites, creating models separately for patients with and without hypertension. We then tested the significance of an interaction term between race and hypertension on angiographic findings.ResultsWe identified 1,203 black and 2,538 white patients who underwent initial elective angiography. Black patients were less likely to have a significant stenotic lesion (≥50% stenosis in the left main artery or ≥70% stenosis elsewhere) than whites (adjusted risk ratio 0.65; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.55-0.75). Among patients with hypertension this difference was exaggerated (adjusted risk ratio 0.60; 95% CI 0.51-0.71). However, among patients without hypertension, the risk of having a significant lesion was similar in blacks and whites (adjusted risk ratio 0.97; 95% CI 0.67-1.37). The interaction term for race and hypertension was confirmed as statistically significant.ConclusionsAmong patients electively referred for angiography, hypertension, and its effects may contribute to the lower rate of CAD found in blacks compared to whites.American Journal of Hypertension (2011). doi:10.1038/ajh.2010.189 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Española de Cardiología (18855857) is the property of Elsevier B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.Structure: Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patients with severe coronary artery disease with a clinical indication for revascularization but who are at high procedural risk because of patient comorbidities, complexity of coronary anatomy, and/or poor hemodynamics represent an understudied and potentially underserved patient population. Through advances in percutaneous interventional techniques and technologies and improvements in patient selection, current percutaneous coronary intervention may allow appropriate patients to benefit safely from revascularization procedures that might not have been offered in the past. The burgeoning interest in these procedures in some respects reflects an evolutionary step within the field of percutaneous coronary intervention. However, because of the clinical complexity of many of these patients and procedures, it is critical to develop dedicated specialists within interventional cardiology who are trained with the cognitive and technical skills to select these patients appropriately and to perform these procedures safely. Preprocedural issues such as multidisciplinary risk and treatment assessments are highly relevant to the successful treatment of these patients, and knowledge gaps and future directions to improve outcomes in this emerging area are discussed. Ultimately, an evolution of contemporary interventional cardiology is necessary to treat the increasingly higher-risk patients with whom we are confronted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]