Search

Intravascular lithotripsy (IVL) is a new technique for treatment of severely calcified lesions that uses acoustic shockwaves in a balloon-based system to induce fracture in calcific plaque, facilitating luminal gain and vessel expansion. In this review, we provide a concise summary of the available data and clinical experience of IVL in various peripheral vascular beds, including facilitating vascular access for large-bore devices. We discuss the physics and mode of action of IVL in modifying calcified plaques, include several illustrative examples of utility of IVL in peripheral interventions, and discuss the future directions for adoption of the technique in peripheral interventions., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) are at high risk for impaired antiplatelet activity secondary to malabsorption, systemic hypoperfusion, hypothermia, need for mechanical ventilation, and high use of analgesics. The use of antiplatelet therapy in these high-risk patients is not well studied., Methods: Using the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative database, we analyzed patients who presented with AMI-CS at 60 hospitals from March 2018 to December 2020. All patients were treated using a standard shock protocol. Herein, the patterns of antiplatelet use are described., Results: A total of 204 patients were included in the analysis, of which 174 (85.3%) presented with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The majority (84.3%) received antiplatelet therapy before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI); of those who received antiplatelets, 77.9% received aspirin, 55.2% received an oral P2Y12 inhibitor, and 19.2% received intravenous (IV) antiplatelet therapy. Ticagrelor was the most common P2Y12 inhibitor administered (41.9%), followed by clopidogrel (12.2%) and prasugrel (1.2%). Only 18.6% of oral antiplatelet agents were crushed. Baseline characteristics of patients who received IV vs non-IV antiplatelet agents were similar. Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) 0 flow was present in 69.6% of patients before PCI and aspiration thrombectomy was performed in 24.5% of patients. The presence of STEMI, cardiac arrest, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, hypothermia, vasopressor use, elevated lactate levels, or number of vessels treated did not influence the use of IV antiplatelet agents., Conclusions: The use of crushed and IV antiplatelet agents in AMI-CS is low. Further studies are needed in this high-risk population to assess whether more potent antiplatelet inhibition will improve outcomes.

Background: Increasing vasopressor dose is associated with increasing mortality in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMICS). It is unknown whether the use of vasopressors is independently harmful or if their use is secondary to decreasing intrinsic cardiac power output (CPO). Mechanical circulatory support (MCS) devices enhance CPO. We sought to evaluate the independent impact of increasing vasopressor dose on survival in the National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative (NCSI)., Methods: The NCSI is a single arm prospective trial evaluating outcomes associated with the use of MCS using Impella in patients with AMICS. Early initiation of MCS placement before percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and rapid de-escalation of vasopressors guided by systematic use of invasive hemodynamic measures led to 70% in-hospital survival for the first 300 patients enrolled from July 2016 to December 2019 in 57 U.S. sites., Results: Hemodynamic measures were obtained immediately after MCS and PCI. Survival curves were constructed based on CPO and use of vasopressors. For patients with CPO ≤0.6 W, survival was 77.3%, 45.0%, and 35.3% when 0, 1, or ≥ 2 vasopressors were used (p = 0.02). Similarly, for patients with CPO >0.6 W survival was 81.7%, 72.6%, and 56.8%, respectively (p = 0.01). Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that increasing vasopressor requirements were independently associated with increasing mortality (p = 0.02)., Conclusion: Increasing vasopressor requirement is associated with increased mortality in AMICS independent of underlying CPO. Methods to decrease the need for vasopressors may enhance survival in AMICS., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objectives: This study sought to compare outcomes of patients enrolled in the NCSI (National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative) trial who were treated using a revascularization strategy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of multivessel PCI (MV-PCI) versus culprit-vessel PCI (CV-PCI)., Background: In patients with multivessel disease who present with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMICS), intervening on the nonculprit vessel is controversial. There are conflicting published reports and lack of evidence, particularly in patients treated with early mechanical circulatory support (MCS)., Methods: From July 2016 to December 2019, patients who presented with AMICS to 57 participating hospitals were included in this analysis. All patients were treated using a standard shock protocol emphasizing early MCS, revascularization, and invasive hemodynamic monitoring. Patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD) were analyzed according to whether CV-PCI or MV-PCI was undertaken during the index procedure., Results: Of 198 patients with MVCAD, 126 underwent MV-PCI (64%) and 72 underwent CV-PCI (36%). Demographics between the cohorts were similar with respect to age, sex, history of diabetes, prior PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting, and prior history of myocardial infarction. Patients who underwent MV-PCI had a trend toward more severe impairment of cardiac output and worse lactate clearance on presentation, and cardiac performance was significantly worse at 12 h. However, 24 h from PCI, the hemometabolic derangements were similar. Survival and rates of acute kidney injury were not significantly different between groups (69.8% MV-PCI vs. 65.3% CV-PCI; p = 0.51; and 29.9% vs. 34.2%; p = 0.64, respectively)., Conclusions: In patients with MVCAD presenting with AMICS treated with early MCS, revascularization of nonculprit lesions was associated with similar hospital survival and acute kidney injury when compared with culprit-only PCI. Selective nonculprit PCI can be safety performed in AMICS in patients supported with mechanical circulatory support., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The National Cardiogenic Shock Initiative is a single-arm, prospective, multicenter study to assess outcomes associated with early mechanical circulatory support (MCS) in patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock (AMICS) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Methods: Between July 2016 and February 2019, 35 sites participated and enrolled into the study. All centers agreed to treat patients with AMICS using a standard protocol emphasizing invasive hemodynamic monitoring and rapid initiation of MCS. Inclusion and exclusion criteria mimicked those of the "SHOCK" trial with an additional exclusion criteria of intra-aortic balloon pump counter-pulsation prior to MCS., Results: A total of 171 consecutive patients were enrolled. Patients had an average age of 63 years, 77% were male, and 68% were admitted with AMICS. About 83% of patients were on vasopressors or inotropes, 20% had a witnessed out of hospital cardiac arrest, 29% had in-hospital cardiac arrest, and 10% were under active cardiopulmonary resuscitation during MCS implantation. In accordance with the protocol, 74% of patients had MCS implanted prior to PCI. Right heart catheterization was performed in 92%. About 78% of patients presented with ST-elevation myocardial infarction with average door to support times of 85 ± 63 min and door to balloon times of 87 ± 58 min. Survival to discharge was 72%. Creatinine ≥2, lactate >4, cardiac power output (CPO) <0.6 W, and age ≥ 70 years were predictors of mortality. Lactate and CPO measurements at 12-24 hr reliably predicted overall mortality postindex procedure., Conclusion: In contemporary practice, use of a shock protocol emphasizing best practices is associated with improved outcomes., (© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Purpose of Review: Recent epidemiological and genetic studies have suggested that lipoprotein (a) [Lp(a)] is a causal mediator of cardiovascular disease (CVD). There is now interest in evaluating Lp(a) as a therapeutic target. This review will summarize emerging therapeutic agents to lower Lp(a)., Recent Findings: Apheresis is the most efficacious method to lower Lp(a). Currently, there are no approved drugs to specifically lower Lp(a). However, recent data has demonstrated that Lp(a) can be significantly lowered, along with reductions in other apolipoprotein B-100 (apoB) containing lipoproteins, with antisense oligonucleotides to apoB, monoclonal antibodies to proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9, cholesterol ester transfer protein inhibitors, and thyromimetics. The farnesoid X receptor/fibroblast growth factor axis and interleukin-6 also influence Lp(a) levels and may be targets of therapy. Finally, specific apolipoprotein (a) [apo(a)] inhibitors apo(a) have been developed and reduce apo(a) mRNA and protein levels up to 86% without significantly affecting other lipoproteins., Summary: Lp(a) remains the last major lipoprotein disorder without any specific therapy. With the strong and accumulating data on its role as a causal risk factor for CVD, a rationale exists to develop novel agents to reduce Lp(a) and test the hypothesis that this will lead to reduced CVD events.