Search

During an attempted PCI utilizing a femoral approach, a balloon became entrapped in the Left Circumflex Artery. Initial retrieval efforts including pulling the balloon and inflating a second balloon over the entrapment failed, the balloon fractured, and the distal end of the balloon apparatus migrated out of the guide catheter. We utilized a stepwise approach with a double helix wiring technique, snares and a change from a transfemoral to transradial approach to successfully retrieve the foreign bodies. This case highlights the importance of utilizing multiple techniques in series and understanding anatomical influences on equipment retrieval when single techniques and approaches fail.

The current ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) vs. non-STEMI (NSTEMI) paradigm prevents some NSTEMI patients with acute coronary occlusion from receiving emergent reperfusion, in spite of their known increased mortality compared with NSTEMI without occlusion. We have proposed a new paradigm known as occlusion MI vs. nonocclusion MI (OMI vs. NOMI).We aimed to compare the two paradigms within a single population. We hypothesized that STEMI(-) OMI would have characteristics similar to STEMI(+) OMI but longer time to catheterization.We performed a retrospective review of a prospectively collected acute coronary syndrome population. OMI was defined as an acute culprit and either TIMI 0-2 flow or TIMI 3 flow plus peak troponin T 1.0 ng/mL. We collected electrocardiograms, demographic characteristics, laboratory results, angiographic data, and outcomes.Among 467 patients, there were 108 OMIs, with only 60% (67 of 108) meeting STEMI criteria. Median peak troponin T for the STEMI(+) OMI, STEMI(-) OMI, and no occlusion groups were 3.78 (interquartile range [IQR] 2.18-7.63), 1.87 (IQR 1.12-5.48), and 0.00 (IQR 0.00-0.08). Median time from arrival to catheterization was 41 min (IQR 23-86 min) for STEMI(+) OMI compared with 437 min (IQR 85-1590 min) for STEMI(-) OMI (p 0.001). STEMI(+) OMI was more likely than STEMI(-) OMI to undergo catheterization within 90 min (76% vs. 28%; p 0.001).STEMI(-) OMI patients had significant delays to catheterization but adverse outcomes more similar to STEMI(+) OMI than those with no occlusion. These data support the OMI/NOMI paradigm and the importance of further research into emergent reperfusion for STEMI(-) OMI.

Background Occlusion myocardial infarctions (OMIs) of the posterolateral walls are commonly missed by ST‐segment–elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) criteria, with >50% of patients with circumflex occlusion not receiving emergent reperfusion and experiencing increased mortality. ST‐segment depression maximal in leads V1–V4 (STDmaxV1–4) has been suggested as an indicator of posterior OMI. Methods and Results We retrospectively reviewed a high‐risk population with acute coronary syndrome. OMI was defined from prior studies as a culprit lesion with TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction) 0 to 2 flow or TIMI 3 flow plus peak troponin T >1.0 ng/mL or troponin I >10 ng/mL. STEMI was defined by the Fourth Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction. ECGs were interpreted blinded to outcomes. Among 808 patients, there were 265 OMIs, 108 (41%) meeting STEMI criteria. A total of 118 (15%) patients had “suspected ischemic” STDmaxV1–4, of whom 106 (90%) had an acute culprit lesion, 99 (84%) had OMI, and 95 (81%) underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. Suspected ischemic STDmaxV1–4 had 97% specificity and 37% sensitivity for OMI. Of the 99 OMIs detected by STDmaxV1–4, 34% had P =0.028). Conclusions Among patients with high‐risk acute coronary syndrome, the specificity of ischemic STDmaxV1–4 was 97% for OMI and 96% for OMI requiring emergent percutaneous coronary intervention. STEMI criteria missed half of OMIs detected by STDmaxV1–4. Ischemic STDmaxV1–V4 in acute coronary syndrome should be considered OMI until proven otherwise.

Highlights • Acute coronary occlusions without ST elevation criteria suffer double mortality without reperfusion. • ECG findings other than ST elevation criteria can identify occlusion myocardial infarction sooner and more accurately. • Our results justify further research to evaluate the external validity of advanced ECG interpretation., Objective In the STEMI paradigm of Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI), many NSTEMI patients have unrecognized acute coronary occlusion MI (OMI), may not receive emergent reperfusion, and have higher mortality than NSTEMI patients without occlusion. We have proposed a new OMI vs. Non-Occlusion MI (NOMI) paradigm shift. We sought to compare the diagnostic accuracy of OMI ECG findings vs. formal STEMI criteria for the diagnosis of OMI. We hypothesized that blinded interpretation for predefined OMI ECG findings would be more accurate than STEMI criteria for the diagnosis of OMI. Methods We performed a retrospective case-control study of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome. The primary definition of OMI was either 1) acute TIMI 0–2 flow culprit or 2) TIMI 3 flow culprit with peak troponin T ≥1.0 ng/mL or I ≥10.0 ng/mL. Results 808 patients were included, of whom 49% had AMI (33% OMI; 16% NOMI). Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of STEMI criteria vs Interpreter 1 using OMI ECG findings among 808 patients were 41% vs 86%, 94% vs 91%, and 77% vs 89%, and for Interpreter 2 among 250 patients were 36% vs 80%, 91% vs 92%, and 76% vs 89%. STEMI(−) OMI patients had similar infarct size and mortality as STEMI(+) OMI patients, but greater delays to angiography. Conclusions Blinded interpretation using predefined OMI ECG findings was superior to STEMI criteria for the ECG diagnosis of Occlusion MI. These data support further investigation into the OMI vs. NOMI paradigm and suggest that STEMI(−) OMI patients could be identified rapidly and noninvasively for emergent reperfusion using more accurate ECG interpretation.

BACKGROUND: Obesity is a growing pandemic that is associated with multiple cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factors such as hypertension, diabetes, dyslipidemia and obstructive sleep apnea. With the increase in obesity rates where nearly two thirds of Americans are either obese or overweight, there has been an increase in the use of pharmacological therapy weight loss. While these therapies have shown benefit in weight reduction, the clinical impact these pharmacological agents on overall CVD outcomes has yet to be determined. AIM: We aimed to assess the effect of pharmacological agents used for weight reduction on CVD risk and all-cause mortality. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis of peer-reviewed literature that evaluated the impact of anti-obesity drugs on cardiovascular outcomes. Key words used included: “orlistat”, “lorcaserin”, “phentermine/topiramate” or “naltrexone/bupropion” and “cardiovascular outcomes” among others. We reviewed 791 articles, only 47 studies were randomized controlled trials and only 7 studies fulfilled all the inclusion criteria including, quantitative data on cardiovascular risk factors such as, Hemoglobin A1C (A1C), changes in body mass index (BMI), blood pressure and CVD morbidity and mortality. Data was retrieved from these studies and evaluated with comprehensive meta-analysis software(®) to assess pooled effects for medical management versus placebo. RESULTS: There were 7 studies included in the final analysis, with a total of 18,598 subjects, of which 8,685 were in the intervention (INT) group and 9,913 in the control (CTRL) group. For all cause mortality, there were 45 events in the INT and 55 in the CTRL groups, suggesting no significant difference between the two groups (OR: 0.843, 95%CI: 0.571–1.244, Z: −0.860, P: 0.390). For CVD mortality, there were 17 events in the INT and 36 events in the CTRL groups suggesting a significant mortality benefit in the INT group (OR:0.496, 95% CI: 0.282–0.873, Z: −2.433, P: 0.015). There was a significant absolute reduction in A1C in the INT group (Hg: −0.238, 95%CI: −0.291 to −0.186, Z: −8.937, P< 0.001). The percentage weight reduction was significantly higher for the INT group compared to the CTRL group (Hg: −0.431, 95%CI: −0.477 to −0.385, Z: −18.472, P< 0.001) and the blood pressure reduction was higher for the INT group compared to the CTRL group. (Hg: −0.052, 95%CI: −0.101- −0.003, Z: −2.086, P: 0.037). The heterogeneity observed for our meta analysis is Q: 1.884, df: 6, P: 0.930. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated the favorable and significant effect of pharmacological weight reduction strategies on weight loss, blood pressure reduction, glycemic control (A1C reduction), and CVD mortality. While weight loss without pharmacological means has been shown to reduce CVD risk, the mechanism by which weight loss medications impact CVD risk reduction could be a direct effect of these agents or merely an effect of weight reduction itself. Weight loss has been noted to modify risk factors via improving insulin sensitivity, reducing inflammation, decreasing blood pressure and modifying the lipid profile, In addition, the mechanism of action of the medications are not directly anti-inflammatory, and do not directly modify insulin sensitivity, blood pressure or the lipid profile. Thus, it is most likely that the benefit on cardiovascular disease from these therapies is via weight reduction and not direct medication effect. Given the limited efficacy of the lifestyle modification on sustained weight loss and the surgical risk and limited availability of bariatric surgical options. Our data suggests pharmacological weight loss therapy may be a valuable treatment option to reduce CVD risk in obese patients. Further research is needed to clarify the effects these therapies on overall mortality and evaluate the mechanisms by which these medications reduce CVD risk factors and mortality.

Objectives: To conducted a meta-analysis assessing the relationship between Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) and the risk of Atrial Fibrillation (AF).Methods: We searched PUBMED, Medline, and Cochrane Library using the keywords “atrial fibrillation”, “obstructive sleep apnea” and “sleep disordered breathing (SDB)”. All subjects included had established diagnosis of OSA/SDB. We then compared the occurrence of AF versus no AF. Analysis done with Comprehensive Meta- Analysis package V3 (Biostat, USA).Results: A total of 579 results were generated. Duplicates were removed and 372 records were excluded based on irrelevant abstracts, titles, study design not consistent with the stated outcome, or full-text unavailable. Twelve studies meeting the inclusion criteria were reviewed in full-text; 2 of these articles were eventually removed due to unconfirmed OSA diagnostic modality, and one was also removed based on a control group inconsistent with the other studies. Therefore, a total of 9 studies were included (n=19,837). Sample sizes ranged from n=160 patients to n=6841 patients. The risk of AF was found to be higher among OSA/SDB versus control group (OR; 2.120, C.I: 1.845- 2.436, Z; 10.598 p

Objectives: Patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) benefit from angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) therapy. While dose reduction/discontinuation (r/d) of β-blockers (BB) and furosemide in acute decompensated HF (ADHF) worsen outcomes, data on ACEI/ARB are lacking. Methods: To determine the frequency and reasons for ACEI/ARB therapy r/d in ADHF patients, we studied 174 patients with LVEF Results: ACEI/ARB doses were r/d in 17.2% because of acute kidney injury (56.7%), hypotension (23.3%), and hyperkalemia (10%). Clinical characteristics were similar between patients with r/d and continued therapy. Admission and discharge creatinine (Cr) levels were higher in the r/d group. On multivariate analysis, admission Cr and admission systolic blood pressures were independent predictors of r/d. Among patients with renal dysfunction cited as the r/d reason, Cr did not significantly rise in 23.5%. The r/d group had a longer length of stay (LOS). Conclusions: ACEI/ARB dose is reduced and/or discontinued in nearly one-fifth of all ADHF admissions, and LOS is longer in the ACEI/ARB r/d group. While impaired renal function is the most frequently cited reason, nearly one-fourth of the patients had stable renal function. ACEI/ARB r/d therapy in the setting of ADHF merits further study.