Search

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.

The outcomes for patients transferred with cardiogenic shock and later treated with revascularization and Impella support have not previously been studied. To evaluate these outcomes, patients in cardiogenic shock were recruited from the catheter-based ventricular assist device registry, a prospective registry enrolling patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention with hemodynamic support using Impella 2.5 or CP. Analysis was performed on subgroups of patients who were characterized as those directly admitted to a tertiary care hospital (direct), or those transferred from an outside hospital (transfer). Patients who were transferred with acute myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock (AMICS) more often presented in shock were in shock longer than 24 hours, and were more likely to be on intra-aortic balloon pump but were less likely to sustain cardiac arrest. The number of pressors, EF, diseased, and treated vessels were similar between the 2 groups. Despite baseline differences, the mortality was similar in the transfer versus direct patients (47.0% vs 53.5% p = 0.19). In a multivariate model, the factors independently associated with 30-day mortality in AMICS treated with revascularization and Impella support were cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (p <0.01), age (p <0.01), and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (p = 0.02). Whether the patient was transferred or directly admittedly with AMICS was not an independent predictor of death. In conclusion, these findings suggest that considerations should be given to transfer patients with AMICS to allow them to be treated in a contemporary manner., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Black patients with acute myocardial infarction are less likely than whites to receive coronary interventions. It is unknown whether racial disparities exist for other treatments for non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE ACS) and how different treatments affect outcomes., Methods and Results: Using data from 400 US hospitals participating in the CRUSADE (Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes with Early Implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines?) National Quality Improvement Initiative, we identified black and white patients with high-risk NSTE ACS (positive cardiac markers and/or ischemic ST-segment changes). After adjustment for demographics and medical comorbidity, we compared the use of therapies recommended by the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for NSTE ACS and outcomes by race. Our study included 37,813 (87.3%) white and 5504 (12.7%) black patients. Black patients were younger; were more likely to have hypertension, diabetes, heart failure, and renal insufficiency; and were less likely to have insurance coverage or primary cardiology care. Black patients had a similar or higher likelihood than whites of receiving older ACS treatments such as aspirin, beta-blockers, or ACE inhibitors but were significantly less likely to receive newer ACS therapies, including acute glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, acute and discharge clopidogrel, and statin therapy at discharge. Blacks were also less likely to receive cardiac catheterization, revascularization procedures, or smoking cessation counseling. Acute risk-adjusted outcomes were similar between black and white patients., Conclusions: Black patients with NSTE ACS were less likely than whites to receive many evidence-based treatments, particularly those that are costly or newer. Longitudinal studies are needed to assess the long-term impact of these treatment disparities on clinical outcomes.

Primary revascularization (PR) and thrombolytic therapy (TT) reduce infarct size and mortality in patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Electrocardiogram methods can determine the extent of myocardial salvage with different AMI therapies by comparing infarct size predicted by initial ST-segment changes and infarct size estimated by later quantitative QRS scores. In a community hospital setting, we used quantitative electrocardiogram methods to estimate infarct size and myocardial salvage associated with TT and PR amongst 50 patients presenting with inferior ST-segment elevation AMI. Baseline and electrocardiogram characteristics did not differ between TT (n = 29) and PR (n = 21) patients. There was no difference in median myocardial salvage (%) between TT vs. PR groups, (38.3% vs. 44.9% respectively, P =.66). Among patients with inferior AMI, myocardial salvage was achieved with both TT and PR therapy and did not differ significantly between reperfusion strategies.

Fibrinolytic therapy is still used in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) when the primary percutaneous coronary intervention cannot be provided in a timely fashion. Management strategies and outcomes in transferred fibrinolytic-treated STEMI patients have not been well assessed in real-world settings. Using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2008 to 2012, we identified 18 814 patients with STEMI who received fibrinolytic therapy and were transferred to a different facility within 24 hours. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included gastrointestinal bleeding, bleeding requiring transfusion, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), length of stay, and cost. The patients were divided into 3 groups: those who received medical therapy alone (n = 853; 4.5%), those who underwent coronary artery angiography without revascularization (n = 2573; 13.7%), and those who underwent coronary artery angiography with revascularization (n = 15 388; 81.8%). Rates of in-hospital mortality among the groups were 20% vs 6.6% vs 2.1%, respectively (P < 0.001); ICH was 8.5% vs 1.1% vs 0.6%, respectively (P < 0.001); and gastrointestinal bleeding was 1.1% vs 0.4% vs 0.4%, respectively (P = 0.011). Multivariate analysis identified increasing age, higher Charlson Comorbidity Index score, cardiogenic shock, cardiac arrest, and ICH as the independent predictors of not performing coronary artery angiography and/or revascularization in patients with STEMI initially treated with fibrinolytic therapy. The majority of STEMI patients transferred after receiving fibrinolytic therapy undergo coronary angiography. However, notable numbers of patients do not receive revascularization, especially patients with cardiogenic shock and following a cardiac arrest.

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.)

Background: The Scoreflex NC scoring angioplasty catheter is designed with a short rapid-exchange tip distal to a non-compliant, high-pressure balloon and an integral wire outside of the balloon, such that the guidewire and the integral wire act as scoring elements during balloon inflation. The external scoring elements enable a focal stress pattern facilitating expansion of resistant lesions at lower pressures using a focused force angioplasty effect.Methods: Patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) were enrolled in a prospective, single-arm study conducted at 12 centers in the United States. The primary endpoint was device procedural success, defined as the composite of successful device delivery to the target lesion with balloon inflation and deflation; absence of vessel perforation, flow-limiting dissection or reduction in TIMI flow from baseline; and achievement of final TIMI 3 flow.Results: Among 200 patients (234 lesions), lesion complexities included: bifurcation disease (37.6%), moderate/severe calcification (36.6%), and total occlusions (5.0%). Successful delivery to the target lesion, inflation and removal of the balloon catheter was achieved in 95.5% of patients (191/200). Procedural success was achieved in 93.5% (187/200) of patients, and final TIMI 3 flow was observed in 99.0% of cases (198/200). No unanticipated device-related events occurred. In-hospital major adverse events were reported in 4.5% of patients (9/200), related to periprocedural myocardial infarction (8/200, 4.0%) and target lesion revascularization (1/200, 0.5%).Conclusions: Among patients undergoing elective PCI and with varied lesion complexity, these results support the safety and effectiveness of a dilation strategy using the Scoreflex NC scoring catheter. [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]

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]

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 cm2, 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although many studies show an inverse association between operator procedural volume and short-term adverse outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the association between procedural volume and longer-term outcomes is unknown.Methods: Using the National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI registry data linked with Medicare claims data, we examined the association between operator PCI volume and long-term outcomes among patients ≥65 years of age. Operators were stratified by average annual PCI volume (counting PCIs performed in patients of all ages): low- (<50 PCIs), intermediate- (50-100), and high- (>100) volume operators. One-year unadjusted rates of death and major adverse coronary events (MACEs; defined as death, readmission for myocardial infarction, or unplanned coronary revascularization) were calculated with Kaplan-Meier methods. The proportional hazards assumption was not met, and risk-adjusted associations between operator volume and outcomes were calculated separately from the time of PCI to hospital discharge and from hospital discharge to 1-year follow-up.Results: Between July 1, 2009, and December 31, 2014, 723 644 PCI procedures were performed by 8936 operators: 2553 high-, 2878 intermediate-, and 3505 low-volume operators. Compared with high- and intermediate-volume operators, low-volume operators more often performed emergency PCI, and their patients had fewer cardiovascular comorbidities. Over 1-year follow-up, 15.9% of patients treated by low-volume operators had a MACE compared with 16.9% of patients treated by high-volume operators ( P=0.004). After multivariable adjustment, intermediate- and high-volume operators had a significantly lower rate of in-hospital death than low-volume operators (odds ratio, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.86-0.96 for intermediate versus low; odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.75-0.83 for high versus low). There were no significant differences in rates of MACEs, death, myocardial infarction, or unplanned revascularization between operator cohorts from hospital discharge to 1-year follow-up (adjusted hazard ratio for MACEs, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.96-1.01 for intermediate versus low; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.99-1.04 for high versus low).Conclusions: Unadjusted 1-year outcomes after PCI were worse for older adults treated by operators with higher annual volume; however, patients treated by these operators had more cardiovascular comorbidities. After risk adjustment, higher operator volume was associated with lower in-hospital mortality and no difference in postdischarge MACEs. [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]