Search

Coronary artery disease (CAD) has known risk factors. Individual risks related to specific ethnicities are complex and depend on genetic predisposition and lifestyle.To compare the nature and prevalence of risk factors in Arab and non-Arab ethnic patients with symptomatic obstructive CAD referred for coronary angiography.CAD, defined as coronary angiography with a ≥ 50% narrowing in ≥ 1 vessel, was diagnosed in 1029 patients admitted to a medical center between April 2014 and October 2015. Patients were divided into two groups according to ethnic origin: Arab vs. non-Arab. Demographics, clinical presentation, and coronary risk profiles were compared.The diagnosis of CAD was made during ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in 198 patients (19%) who arrived at the clinic, 620 (60%) with unstable angina/non-STEMI, and 211 (21%) with stable angina. Patients with symptomatic CAD and Arab ethnicity were 47% more prevalent than non-Arab patients presenting with CAD. The Arab patients were appoximately 5 years younger, 50% more likely to be active smokers, 25% more likely to be obese, and more likely to have a family history of CAD. Other coronary risk factors were similar between the two groups.Smoking and obesity, which are potentially modifiable CAD risk factors, stood out as major risk factors, in addition to genetic disposition, among Arab and non-Arab patients with symptomatic CAD. Screening and educational interventions for smoking cessation, obesity control, and compliance to treatment of co-morbidities should be attempted in order to decrease CAD in the Arab population.

Efficiency of percutaneous revascularization and the utility of levosimendan for advanced ischemic heart failure (HF) is unclear. We examined the efficacy of revascularization and levosimendan on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and mortality of patients admitted with acute decompensated HF and severe left ventricular dysfunction.A prospective case control study that enrolled 84 patients with ischemic decompensated HF with LVEF35% and preserved LV wall thickness. Group A: 42 patients whose LVEF improved post percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Group B1: 22 patients whose LVEF did not improve post-PCI alone but improved after levosimendan. Group B2: 20 patients whose LVEF did not improve neither post-PCI nor post levosimendan.LVEF increased in group A from 22 ± 5 to 29 ± 5% post PCI and continued to improve at the 6 month follow-up (36 ± 4%). In group B1 LVEF did not improve after PCI, but increased after levosimendan from 23 ± 4% to 32 ± 4% and remained constant at 6 months. In group B2 LVEF 26 ± 4% did not change following both interventions. Reverse remodeling with a decrease in end-diastolic and end-systolic diameters was observed only in groups A and B1. Group B2 had a dismal prognosis with 36% in-hospital and 43% six month mortality. Groups A and B1 had a lower in hospital (4.7%, 4.5%) and mid term (11%, 11%) mortality.Improvement of LV size and function with better prognosis can be expected in the majority of patients undergoing PCI for decompensated ischemic HF. Levosimendan enhanced the recovery of LV function post PCI.

Background Maximal sterile barrier precautions (MSBP) including head coverings and face masks are advocated for use in invasive procedures, including coronary interventions. The rationale for MSBP assumes it is an obligatory measure for infection prevention. However, in many coronary catheterization laboratories, head coverings/face masks are not used in daily practice. This study prospectively evaluated the potential hazards of not routinely using head coverings/face masks in routine coronary interventions. Methods This is a prospective study of ambulatory patients in hospital care. A total of 110 successive elective patients undergoing cardiac catheterizations were recruited. Patients were catheterized by several interventional cardiologists who employed only routine infection control precautions without head coverings or face masks. For each patient, we took blood cultures and cultures from the tips of the coronary catheters and from the sterile saline water flush bowl. Cultures were handled and analyzed at our certified hospital microbiology laboratory. Results In none of the cultures was a clinically significant bacterial growth isolated. No signs of infection were reported later by any of the study patients and there were no relevant subsequent admissions. Conclusion Operating in the catheterization lab without head coverings/face masks was not associated with any bacterial infection in multiple blood and equipment cultures. Accordingly, we believe that the use of head coverings/face masks should not be an obligatory requirement and may be used at the interventional cardiologist’s discretion.

Background Primary percutaneous intervention (PCI) is the treatment of choice for acute ST elevation myocardial infarction. Currently it is recommended to treat only the culprit artery during the acute procedure. Only few reports describe the results of simultaneous non-culprit vessel PCI. The study hypothesizes that complete revascularization during primary PCI can be achieved safely with an improved clinical outcome during the indexed hospitalization. Methods One hundred and twenty consecutive patients presented with acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and multivessel coronary stenosis. Ninety five underwent complete revascularization (CR): the culprit artery was opened first followed by dilatation of the other significantly narrowed arteries. Twenty five had culprit only revascularization (COR): the culprit artery only was dilated and the other arteries were left untreated during the primary PCI. Results Complete revascularization (CR) was associated with reduced incidence of major cardiac events (recurrent ischemia, reinfarction, acute heart failure and in-hospital mortality 16.7 versus 52%, P =0.0001). There was a significant lower rate of recurrent ischemic episodes (4.2% versus 32%, P =0.002), myocardial reinfarction (3.1% versus 16%, P =0.01), reintervention (7.3% versus 32%, P =0.001), acute heart failure (9.4% versus 32%, P =0.01) during the indexed hospitalization and shorter hospitalization (4.4±1.27 versus 9.6±2.3, P =0.001) in the CR group. Transient renal dysfunction was more common in CR patients (8.4% versus 4% P =0.01). In-hospital and one year mortality were similar between the two groups. Conclusion Multivessel PCI during acute myocardial infarction is feasible and safe. Complete revascularization resulted in an improved acute clinical course. These data support a policy of complete revascularization during primary PCI for STEMI.

Introduction Stress-induced cardiomyopathy (Takotsubo) after bee stings in patients who have received catecholamines is rare. Endogenous as well as exogenous administration of catecholamines is thought to trigger stress-induced cardiomyopathy. Case presentation A 37-year-old healthy white woman was stung by an unknown Hymenoptera that resulted in an anaphylactic reaction. Intravenous adrenaline (0.9 mg) was administered at a nearby clinic; she was transferred to our emergency room. Cardiogenic shock was diagnosed and mechanical ventilation commenced. Hemodynamic stabilization was not achieved by inotropic support and intra-aortic balloon pump insertion. Initial coronary angiography did not demonstrate any coronary obstructive lesions while her left ventricular systolic function was severely depressed. Peripheral femoral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was inserted as a bridge to recovery assuming possible reversible cause of the cardiogenic shock. Over the following 48 hours she was extubated and gradually weaned off venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and inotropic support. She was discharged with a near normal left ventricular ejection fraction and in 3 weeks she was asymptomatic with normal electrocardiographic and echocardiographic examinations (left ventricular ejection fraction >65 %). Conclusions A Hymenoptera sting may be a specific cause of catecholamine cardiac depression. The presence of cardiogenic shock and its etiology should prompt aggressive management including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to cardiac functional recovery in such rare scenarios.

Coronary bypass surgery is recommended for the treatment of left main coronary stenosis. Recently a percutaneous approach has been described as a feasible option.To present the in-hospital and long-term clinical and angiographic outcome of a consecutive group of patients undergoing stenting for unprotected left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease, and to compare the clinical and angiographic outcomes of drug-eluting stent (DES) versus metal stent (BMS).238 consecutive patients underwent unprotected LMCA stenting. 165 received BMS and 73 received DES. Most patients (88.7%) presented with acute coronary syndrome. Clinical (100%) and angiographic (84%) follow-up was obtained.Patients' presentation: STEMI (7.2%), non-STEMI (13.5%), unstable angina (67.6%), stable angina (11.7%). Procedural success rate was 100%. In-hospital mortality was 2.1%, all in patients presented with unstable hemodynamic conditions. None of the patients needed emergent CABG. In the long-term follow-up (average three years) there were 12 deaths (5%), 3 patients required CABG and 25 patients required TVR. The overall angiographic LM restenosis rate show a trend toward lower rate in the DES group than the BMS group (9.6% versus 13.8%, P = 0.08). There was no difference in one year mortality (4.1% versus 4.2%) and AMI (2.7% versus 2.8%) between DES and BMS.Stenting for LM stenosis can be performed safely with acceptable in hospital and long-term outcome. Reconsideration of current guidelines should be considered. Drug-eluting stent implantation for unprotected LMCA stenosis appears safe with regard to acute and long-term complications and is more effective in preventing restenosis compared to BMS implantation.