Search

ABSTRACT Introduction and objectives: The optimal time to perform a diagnostic coronary angiography in patients admitted due to non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTEACS) and start pretreatment with dual antiplatelet therapy is controversial. Our study aims to identify the current diagnostic and therapeutic approach, and clinical progression of patients with NSTEACS in our country. Methods: The IMPACT-TIMING-GO trial (Impact of time of intervention in patients with myocardial infarction with non-ST segment elevation. Management and outcomes) is a national, observational, prospective, and multicenter registry that will include consecutive patients from 24 Spanish centers with a clinical diagnosis of NSTEACS treated with diagnostic coronary angiography and with present unstable or causal atherosclerotic coronary artery disease. The study primary endpoint is to assess the level of compliance to clinical practice guidelines in patients admitted due to NSTEACS undergoing coronary angiography in Spain, describe the use of antithrombotic treatment prior to cardiac catheterization, and register the time elapsed until it is performed. Major adverse cardiovascular events will also be described like all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke, and the rate of major bleeding according to the BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) scale at 1- and 3-year follow-up. Results: This study will provide more information on the impact of different early management strategies in patients admitted with NSTEACS in Spain, and the degree of implementation of current recommendations into the routine clinical practice. It will also provide information on these patients’ baseline and clinical characteristics. Conclusions: This is the first prospective study conducted in Spain that will be reporting on the early therapeutic strategies—both pharmacological and interventional—implemented in our country in patients with NSTEACS after the publication of the 2020 European guidelines, and on the clinical short- and long-term outcomes of these patients.

RESUMEN Introducción y objetivos: El momento óptimo para la realización de un cateterismo diagnóstico en pacientes con síndrome coronario agudo sin elevación del segmento ST (SCASEST) y la necesidad de pretratamiento con doble antiagregación son motivo de controversia. Este estudio pretende conocer el abordaje diagnóstico y terapéutico actual, así como la evolución clínica de los pacientes con SCASEST en España. Métodos: El estudio IMPACT of Time of Intervention in patients with Myocardial Infarction with Non-ST seGment elevation. ManaGement and Outcomes (IMPACT-TIMING-GO) es un registro nacional observacional, prospectivo y multicéntrico, que incluirá pacientes consecutivos con diagnóstico de SCASEST tratados con coronariografía diagnóstica y que presenten enfermedad coronaria aterosclerótica inestable o causal en 24 centros españoles. El objetivo primario del estudio es conocer el grado de cumplimiento de las recomendaciones de las guías de práctica clínica en pacientes que ingresan por SCASEST tratados con coronariografía en España, describir el uso del tratamiento antitrombótico antes del cateterismo y determinar el tiempo hasta este en la práctica clínica real. Se describirán también los eventos adversos cardiovasculares mayores: mortalidad por cualquier causa, infarto no fatal e ictus no fatal, y también la incidencia de hemorragia mayor según la escala BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) durante el seguimiento a 1 y 3 años. Resultados: Este registro permitirá mejorar el conocimiento en relación con el abordaje terapéutico inicial en pacientes que ingresan por SCASEST en España. Contribuirá a conocer sus características basales y su evolución clínica, así como el grado de adherencia y cumplimiento de las recomendaciones de las que se dispone actualmente. Conclusiones: Se trata del primer estudio prospectivo realizado en España que permitirá conocer las estrategias terapéuticas iniciales, tanto farmacológicas como intervencionistas, que se realizan en nuestro país en pacientes con SCASEST tras la publicación de las guías europeas de 2020, y la evolución clínica de estos pacientes a corto y largo plazo.

RESUMEN Introducción y objetivos: La posdilatación de stents coronarios con balones no distensibles mejora los resultados clínicos. Los balones no distensibles normales (RegNC) presentan peor navegabilidad y tienen una punta cónica que puede dificultar la posdilatación exitosa. Las condiciones mecánicas de un nuevo balón no distensible con punta esférica (EsfNC) podrían facilitar la posdilatación del stent. Evaluamos la efectividad del EsfNC en la posdilatación coronaria para la intervención coronaria percutánea en la práctica clínica habitual. Métodos: Registro técnico prospectivo y multicéntrico para evaluar la efectividad de un nuevo EsfNC en posdilatación coronaria, con 2 grupos de estudio: uso de EsfNC como primera opción o uso de EsfNC ante el fracaso de RegNC. El evento primario fue el éxito técnico, definido como conseguir avanzar el EsfNC hasta el segmento que posdilatar dentro del stent. Los eventos secundarios fueron el éxito angiográfico, definido como éxito técnico junto con estenosis residual < 30% con flujo final TIMI 3, y el éxito del procedimiento, definido como éxito angiográfico sin complicación mecánica del stent ni eventos cardiovasculares mayores periprocedimiento. Resultados: Se usó EsfNC en 263 lesiones (en 177 como primera opción y en 86 tras el fracaso de RegNC), en 250 procedimientos. Se usaron técnicas complejas para avanzar el EsfNC en el 9,9% de los procedimientos. Los porcentajes de éxito técnico, angiográfico y de procedimiento fueron del 98,9%, el 98,3% y el 98,3% como primera opción, y del 98,8%, el 97,7% y el 96,5% tras fracaso de RegNC, respectivamente. Los EsfNC tuvieron similar calibre (3,39 ± 0,6 frente a 3,34 ± 0,6 mm; p = no significativo) y longitud más corta (11 ± 2 frente a 12 ± 3 mm; p = 0,005) que los RegNC. No se comunicaron complicaciones mecánicas del stent. Conclusiones: La posdilatación coronaria con EsfNC para la intervención coronaria percutánea en la práctica clínica habitual muestra un porcentaje muy alto de éxito técnico, tanto en primera opción (98,9%) como en casos de fracaso de RegNC (98,8%), con baja necesidad de técnicas complejas y buen perfil de seguridad.

ABSTRACT Introduction and objectives: Noncompliant balloon postdilatation of coronary stents improves clinical results. Regular noncompliant balloons (RegNC) have less crossability and a tapered-tip that can complicate successful stent postdilatation. The mechanical conditions of a new spherical tip non-compliant balloon (SphNC) could facilitate stent postdilatation. We tried to evaluate the effectiveness of a new SphNC in the routine percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) practice. Methods: Prospective multicenter technical registry to assess the effectiveness of a new SphNC for stent postdilatation with 2 study arms: use of SphNC as the first choice or as the secondary choice after RegNC failure. The primary endpoint was technical success defined as advancing the SphNC across the stent segment. Secondary endpoints were angiographic success defined as technical success and residual stenosis < 30% with final TIMI grade-3 flow, and procedural success defined as angiographic success without mechanical stent complications or any perioperative major adverse cardiovascular events. Results: The SphNC was used in 263 lesions (177 lesions as first choice, and 86 after RegNC failure) in 250 procedures. The use of the complex technique to advance the SphNC was low (9.9%). Technical, angiographic, and procedural success rates were 98.9%, 98.3%, and 98.3%, respectively, as the first choice, and 98.8%, 97.7%, and 96.5%, respectively, after RegNC failure. SphNC had similar size (3.39 mm ± 0.6 mm vs 3.34 mm ± 0.6 mm; P = nonsignificant), and shorter lengths (11 mm ± 2 mm vs 12 mm ± 3 mm; P = .005) compared to RegNC. No stent-related mechanical complications were reported. Conclusions: SphNC for coronary stent postdilatation in the routine PCI clinical practice has a very high technical success rate as the first choice (98.9%), as well as in cases of RegNC failure (98.8% with low complex technique requirements, and a safe profile).

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.)

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex multifactorial clinical syndrome of end-organ hypoperfusion that could be associated with multisystem organ failure, presenting a diverse range of causes and symptoms. Despite improving survival in recent years due to new advancements, CS still carries a high risk of severe morbidity and mortality. Recent research has focused on improving early detection and understanding of CS through standardized team approaches, detailed hemodynamic assessment, and selective use of temporary mechanical circulatory support devices, leading to better patient outcomes. This review examines CS pathophysiology, emerging classifications, current drug and device therapies, standardized team management strategies, and regionalized care systems aimed at optimizing shock outcomes. Furthermore, we identify gaps in knowledge and outline future research needs.

Objectives: To assess differences in the clinical management of nonST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), including in-hospital events, according to biological sex., Material and Methods: Prospective observational multicenter study of patients diagnosed with NSTEMI and atherosclerosis who underwent coronary angiography., Results: We enrolled 1020 patients in April and May 2022; 240 (23.5%) were women. Women were older than men on average (72.6 vs 66.5 years, P .001), and more women were frail (17.1% vs 5.6%, P .001). No difference was observed in pretreatment with any P2Y12 inhibitor (prescribed in 68.8% of women vs 70.2% of men, P = .67); however, more women than men were prescribed clopidogrel (56% vs 44%, P = .009). Women prescribed clopidogrel were more often under the age of 75 years and not frail. Coronary angiography was performed within 24 hours less corooften in women (29.8% vs 36.9%, P = .03) even when high risk was recognized. Frailty was independently associated with deferring coronary angiography in the adjusted analysis; biological sex by itself was not related. The frequency and type of revascularization were the same in both sexes, and there were no differences in in-hospital cardiovascular events., Conclusion: Women were more often prescribed less potent antithrombotic therapy than men. Frailty, but not sex, correlated independently with deferral of coronary angiography. However, we detected no differences in the frequency of coronary revascularization or in-hospital events according to sex.