Search

Aims: The optimal vascular access site for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock (CS) remains uncertain. While observational data favour transradial access (TRA) due to lower complication rates and mortality, transfemoral access (TFA) PCI offers advantages such as shorter access and procedure times, along with quicker escalation to mechanical circulatory support (MCS). In this study, we aimed to investigate factors associated with a transfemoral approach and compare mortality rates between TRA and TFA in AMI-CS patients undergoing PCI., Methods and Results: Data from a nationwide registry of AMI-CS patients undergoing PCI (2017-2021) were analysed. We compared patient demographics, procedural details, and outcomes between TRA and TFA groups. Logistic regression identified access site factors and radial-to-femoral crossover predictors. Propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis examined the impact of access site on mortality. Of the 1562 patients, 45% underwent TRA PCI, with an increasing trend over time. Transfemoral access patients were more often female, had a history of coronary artery bypass grafting, lower blood pressure, higher resuscitation and intubation rates, and elevated lactate levels. After PSM, 30-day mortality was lower in TRA (33% vs. 46%, P < 0.001). Predictors for crossover included left coronary artery interventions, multivessel PCI, and MCS initiation., Conclusion: Significant differences exist between TRA and TFA PCI in AMI-CS. Transfemoral access was more common in patients with worse haemodynamics and was associated with higher 30-day mortality compared with TRA. This mortality difference persisted in the PSM analysis., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: BS reports receiving speaker fees from Abbott, Abiomed, AstraZeneca and research funding from Abiomed, DFG and EKFS outside the submitted work. BC reports receiving speaker fees from Abiomed, and consultancy fees from Amgen, Sanofi, Boston Scientific and Philips, outside the submitted work. JH reports receiving research grants from Health~Holland, B. Braun, Infraredx/Nipro, ZonMw, Astra Zeneca and Abbott Vascular, outside the submitted work., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: This study aimed to give contemporary insight into the use of Impella and venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) in acute myocardial infarction-related cardiogenic shock (AMICS) and into associated outcomes, adverse events, and resource demands., Methods and Results: This nationwide observational cohort study describes all AMICS patients treated with Impella (ABIOMED, Danvers, MA, USA) and/or VA-ECMO in 2020-2021. Impella and/or VA-ECMO were used in 20% of all AMICS cases (n = 4088). Impella patients were older (34% vs. 13% >75 years, p < 0.001) and less frequently presented after an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (18% vs. 40%, p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality was lower in the Impella versus VA-ECMO cohort (61% vs. 67%, p = 0.001). Adverse events occurred less frequently in Impella-supported patients: acute haemorrhagic anaemia (36% vs. 68%, p < 0.001), cerebrovascular accidents (4% vs. 11%, p < 0.001), thromboembolisms of the extremities (5% vs. 8%, p < 0.001), systemic inflammatory response syndrome (21% vs. 25%, p = 0.004), acute kidney injury (44% vs. 53%, p < 0.001), and acute liver failure (7% vs. 12%, p < 0.001). Impella patients were discharged home directly more often (20% vs. 11%, p < 0.001) whereas VA-ECMO patients were more often discharged to another care facility (22% vs. 19%, p = 0.031). Impella patients had shorter hospital stays and lower hospital costs., Conclusion: This is the largest, most recent European cohort study describing outcomes, adverse events, and resource demands based on claims data in patients with Impella and/or VA-ECMO. Overall, adverse event rates and resource consumption were high. Given the current lack of beneficial evidence, our study reinforces the need for prospectively established, high-quality evidence to guide clinical decision-making., (© 2023 The Authors. European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Purpose: This scoping review aims to identify and describe knowledge gaps and research priorities in veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO)., Methods: An expert panel was recruited consisting of eight international experts from different backgrounds. First, a list of priority topics was made. Second, the panel developed structured questions using population, intervention, comparison and outcomes (PICO) format. All PICOs were scored and prioritized. For every selected PICO, a structured literature search was performed., Results: After an initial list of 49 topics, eight were scored as high-priority. For most of these selected topics, current literature is limited to observational studies, mainly consisting of retrospective cohorts. Only for ECPR and anticoagulation, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed or are ongoing. Per topic, a summary of the literature is stated including recommendations for further research., Conclusions: This scoping review identifies and presents an overview of knowledge gaps and research priorities in VA-ECMO. Current literature is mostly limited to observational studies, although with increasing attention for this patient population, more RCTs are finishing or ongoing. Translational research, from preclinical trials to high-quality or randomized controlled trials, is important to improve the standard practices in this critically ill patient population. Take-home message This scoping review identifies and presents an overview of research gaps and priorities in VA-ECMO. Translational research, from preclinical trials to high-quality or randomized controlled trials, is important to improve the standard practices in this critically ill patient population., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Febrile neutropenia (FN) is a common complication of the intensive treatment strategies used in pediatric oncology. By close adherence to high-quality guidelines, which can be evaluated by indicators, the burden of FN can potentially be reduced., Objectives: The aims of this study were tripartite-(1) to develop structure, process, and outcome indicators, (2) to evaluate the implementation of the Dutch Childhood Oncology Group (DCOG) guideline on FN, and (3) to produce baseline measures on local quality of FN care (in the north of the Netherlands)., Methods: Seven indicators derived from the DCOG guideline were developed. Regarding structure indicators, we gathered information from all local centers providing care for children with cancer (n = 9). Regarding process and outcome indicators, we collected individual patient data from one academic and two shared-care hospitals. Children (<18 years) were included if they had been diagnosed with cancer in 2014 or 2015 and had suffered from FN., Results: Six out of nine hospitals used the DCOG guideline on FN and three hospitals used an outdated supportive care handbook. Regarding individual patient data, we included 119 FN episodes in 59 patients. All FN episodes without focus were initially treated with guideline-based antibiotics. Of all FN episodes, 18.5% resulted in intensive care unit (ICU) admittance. Cumulative incidence of death during FN was 1.74%., Conclusion: Adherence to the DCOG guideline at the individual patient level was excellent. However, indicators concerning mortality and ICU admittances showed that FN still has devastating consequences. Subsequently, we will implement these indicators nationwide in order to improve FN care., (© 2018 The Authors. Pediatric Blood & Cancer Published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)