Search

Background: Embolic protection devices were developed to reduce the risk of common complications encountered during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of saphenous vein grafts, however, in the setting of contemporary multi-modality medical management, their overall efficacy has been called into question. This study aimed to assess the evolving utilization and clinical outcomes associated with distal filter wire embolic protection devices in saphenous vein PCI., Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing PCI to a saphenous vein graft in a registry were included. Peri-procedural and long-term outcomes including 12-month mortality and 30-day MACCE rates were compared between PCI using a distal filter wire embolic protection device and unprotected PCI., Results: From 2005 to 2020, a total of 753 patients underwent PCI to a saphenous vein graft with 256 using a distal filter wire embolic protection device. At one year, the use of a distal filter wire embolic protection devices was not associated with a decrease in mortality (4.7 % vs 5.4 %, p = 0.19) and there was no difference in 30-day MACCE rates between protected and unprotected saphenous vein PCI (3.1 % vs 5.8 %, p = 0.10)., Conclusion: In this 12-month analysis of saphenous vein graft PCI, there was no evidence that distal filter wire embolic protection devices improved short term post procedural or long-term mortality outcomes., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy is a well described phenomenon in patients with preserved ejection fraction at the time of permanent pacemaker implant. One of the identified risk factors for pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy is the degree of ventricular pacing burden. However, it is unclear how a high right ventricular pacing burden affects patients with depressed left ventricular function at the time of pacemaker implantation. We sought to assess the relationship between right ventricular pacing and change in left ventricular function over time., Methods: We conducted an analysis of all patients who had received either a single or dual lead cardiac implantable electronic devices, excluding biventricular devices, and had a prior transthoracic echocardiogram demonstrating an ejection fraction of less than 50%. The primary end-point was the correlation between the percentage of ventricular pacing and the change in LV ejection fraction., Results: Fifty eight patients with preceding heart failure had pacemakers implanted and had follow up echocardiograms. There was no correlation between the degree of ventricular pacing and the absolute change in LV function (r = .04, p = .979). None of the previously identified risk factors for pacemaker induced cardiomyopathy were predictive of a significant fall in ejection fraction., Conclusion: The degree of RV pacing and other established risk factors for pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy in patients with normal left ventricular function at the time of implantation do not appear to carry the same risk in patients with pre-existing heart failure who receive either single or dual lead pacemakers., (© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

The current evidence for vasovagal syncope management is that cardiac pacing is only indicated in a highly select group of patients where symptoms can be linked to bradycardic episodes. High spinal cord injury can lead to autonomic dysfunction and sympathetic nervous system hypoactivity. A high spinal cord injury can theoretically precipitate profound bradycardia leading to haemodynamic instability and syncope. A patient in his 50s with a history of C2 spinal injury was admitted to our tertiary centre for management of what was initially thought to be septic shock causing hypotension and syncope. With evidence to suggest this patient's presentation may be profound reflex syncope in the context of unopposed parasympathetic signalling, consensus was reached to implant a permanent pacemaker. Remarkably, the patient's haemodynamics stabilised and there were no further episodes of syncope., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© BMJ Publishing Group Limited 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background: Increasingly, fractional flow reserve (FFR) is employed to assess coronary artery stenoses although there is limited real world long-term outcome data with a recent report questioning its safety. This study aimed to assess the in-hospital complications and clinical outcomes up to 10 years after FFR-guided revascularisation at a tertiary Australian hospital., Methods: The cohort comprised 274 consecutive patients undergoing FFR from 2010 to 2015 with follow-up to 2020. In-hospital complications and long-term outcomes were compared between patients with FFR≤0.80 and FFR>0.80. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) comprised cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI) and target vessel revascularisation (TVR)., Results: The FFR was ≤0.80 in 166 and >0.80 in 108 patients. Stable coronary disease was present in 95%. Revascularisation was undertaken in 86.7% of the FFR≤0.80 group and in 2.8% of the group with an FFR>0.80. In-hospital adverse events were 3.3% with no pressure wire-related coronary dissection, stroke or death. At median follow-up of 5 years, patients with FFR≤0.80 and FFR>0.80 had a similar rate of cardiac death (2.6% versus 5.0%, p=0.335) and MI (2.6% versus 6.9%, p=0.154). In the FFR>0.80 group, MACE (17.8% v 7.9%; p=0.018) and TVR (12.9% v 5.3%; p=0.033) were significantly higher., Conclusion: This observational study highlights the safety and long-term effectiveness of FFR-guided coronary revascularisation in patients with predominantly stable disease., (Copyright © 2021 Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons (ANZSCTS) and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite the evidence for calibrated cardiac monitored devices to determine fluid responsiveness, there is minimal evidence that the use of cardiac output monitor devices leads to an overall change in IV fluid use. We sought to investigate the feasibility of performing a randomised controlled study using calibrated cardiac output monitoring devices in shocked ICU patients and whether the use of these devices led to a difference in total volume of IV fluid administered., Methods: We performed a single-centre non-blinded randomised controlled study which included patients who met the clinical criteria for shock on admission to ICU. Patients were divided into two groups (cardiac output monitors or standard) by block randomisation. Patients allocated to the cardiac output monitor all received EV1000 with Volume View sets. Daily intravenous fluid administration and cumulative fluid balance was recorded for 3 days. The primary outcome assessed was the difference in daily intravenous fluid administration and cumulative fluid balance at 72 h between the two groups. We also assessed how often the clinicians used the cardiac monitor to guide fluid therapy and the different reasoning for initiating further intravenous fluids., Results: Eighty patients were randomised and 37 received calibrated cardiac output monitors. We found no adverse outcomes in the use of calibrated cardiac output monitoring devices and that was feasible to perform a randomised controlled trial. There was no significant difference between the standard care group vs the cardiac monitoring group for cumulative fluid balance (2503 ± 3764 ml vs 2458 ± 3560 ml, p  = 0.96). There was no significant difference between the groups for daily intravenous fluid administration on days 1, 2 or 3. In the cardiac monitored group, only 43% of the time was the EV1000 output incorporated into the decision to give further intravenous fluids., Conclusion: It is feasible to perform a randomised controlled trial using calibrated cardiac output monitoring devices. In addition, there was no trend to suggest that the use of a cardiac monitors leads to lower IV fluid use in the shocked patient. Further trials will require study designs to optimise the use of a cardiac output monitor to determine the utility of these devices in the shocked patient., Trial Registration: ANZCTR, ACTRN12618001373268. Registered 15 August 2018-retrospectively registered., Competing Interests: The study was approved by the Nepean Blue Mountains Local Health District Research Governance Office (Study 16/54 – HREC/16/NEPEAN/89). Consent for participation was waived for the study due to involvement in the trial does not represent a significant change to the care of enrolled patients. A cardiac output monitor is an established monitoring modality already currently in use the Nepean intensive care unit and most other intensive care units for patients who are critically ill with low blood pressure.Not applicableThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.